Re: git-archive's wrong documentation: really write pax rather than tar

2 messages, 2 authors, 2016-06-15 · open the first message on its own page

Re: git-archive's wrong documentation: really write pax rather than tar

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:51:44

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
It might be a bit more obvious to find if we actually had a
--no-pax-header option, though.
Yeah, we would need to make sure that --no-pack-header causes a barf
for other backends, though. "struct archiver_args" right now seems to have
compression_level but I think it should just have "const char **" that is
interpreted by backends.

Re: git-archive's wrong documentation: really write pax rather than tar

From: Jeff King <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:51:44

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 06:56:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
It might be a bit more obvious to find if we actually had a
--no-pax-header option, though.
Yeah, we would need to make sure that --no-pack-header causes a barf
for other backends, though. "struct archiver_args" right now seems to have
compression_level but I think it should just have "const char **" that is
interpreted by backends.
Actually, it is relevant for zip, too. The option should really be
called "--no-commit-id" or something similar. I don't think it's as big
a deal with zip (because there is no compatibility issue), but you may
want to omit the header for other reasons (e.g., because you know it
doesn't point to a commit that is public).

-Peff
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help