Re: timestamps not git-cloned

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Thomas Rast [off-list ref] wrote:

Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:

quoted

Chris Frey wrote:

quoted

If this is the important bit, perhaps git-archive could be changed
to create tarballs with file timestamps based on their commit dates.

Based on the principle of least surprise, I'd consider this a rather good
idea.

Unless I'm missing something, this would make git-archive rather more
expensive than it is now: Tree objects do not record any timestamps,

How many people use git-archive and how many times a day do they use
it?  For example, kernel.org seems to put out linux-2.x.y.z.tar.bz2
once every 2 to 7 days.

The overhead of this new option (and certainly it should be an option,
not the default) should be measured not against the old running time,
but against the frequency of usage of the tool.  Look at it on those
time scales, it may not be a big deal.

By all accounts, this overhead will not affect the "giterate" [meaning
git-literate ;-)] people too much.