Here's a rather hackish implementation of the write side. Any
thoughts on the format? (Obviously the implementation needs work.
For example, it needs to be optional.
Thoughts so far:
- I want to put the value of "prefix" into an extended header.
- Should blobs have their sha1 hashes in an exte
Michael Haggerty writes:
> On 01/09/2014 09:11 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Andy Lutomirski writes:
>>
>>> It's possible, in principle, to shove enough metadata into the output
>>> of 'git archive' to allow anyone to verify (without cloning the repo)
>>> to verify that the archive is a correct
On 01/09/2014 09:11 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski writes:
>
>> It's possible, in principle, to shove enough metadata into the output
>> of 'git archive' to allow anyone to verify (without cloning the repo)
>> to verify that the archive is a correct copy of a given commit. Would
>>
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski writes:
>
>>> You only need the object name of the top-level tree. After "untar"
>>> the archive into an empty directory, make it a new repository and
>>> "git add . && git write-tree"---the result should match the
>>> top-l
Andy Lutomirski writes:
>> You only need the object name of the top-level tree. After "untar"
>> the archive into an empty directory, make it a new repository and
>> "git add . && git write-tree"---the result should match the
>> top-level tree the archive was supposed to contain.
>
> Hmm. I did
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski writes:
>
>> It's possible, in principle, to shove enough metadata into the output
>> of 'git archive' to allow anyone to verify (without cloning the repo)
>> to verify that the archive is a correct copy of a given commit.
Andy Lutomirski writes:
> It's possible, in principle, to shove enough metadata into the output
> of 'git archive' to allow anyone to verify (without cloning the repo)
> to verify that the archive is a correct copy of a given commit. Would
> this be considered a useful feature?
>
> Presumably th
On 09.01.2014 04:10, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> It's possible, in principle, to shove enough metadata into the output
> of 'git archive' to allow anyone to verify (without cloning the repo)
> to verify that the archive is a correct copy of a given commit. Would
> this be considered a useful feature?
It's possible, in principle, to shove enough metadata into the output
of 'git archive' to allow anyone to verify (without cloning the repo)
to verify that the archive is a correct copy of a given commit. Would
this be considered a useful feature?
Presumably there would be a 'git untar' command th
9 matches
Mail list logo
