Re: [PATCH 7/7] archive: provide builtin .tar.gz filter

From: Jeff King <peff@github.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Chris Webb <chris@arachsys.com>,
	Ren?? Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>,
	"J.H." <warthog19@eaglescrag.net>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, git-dev@github.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] archive: provide builtin .tar.gz filter
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:21:50 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110616182149.GB12689@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vtybphcym.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:02:09AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@github.com> writes:
> 
> > OK. I'm totally willing to accept that people actually prefer the "-n"
> > behavior. I don't care either way myself. I just don't want the reason
> > to default to "-n" to be "because our test scripts need it" and not
> > "because this is what people actually want".
> 
> Surely I share the exact feeling, and that is why I quoted the other "-n"
> added to gitweb because that was what people actually wanted.

Fair enough. I'll use "gzip -n" in my re-roll.

Any comment on the "tarfilter" versus "generic archive filter" issue, or
on the general interface? I think getting that right is my biggest issue
in moving forward.

Also, since it's easy via the external helper route, should there be any
other builtin formats? Bzip2? It's not that big a deal for a big hosting
site like kernel.org to stick it in their configuration, but I wonder if
normal users would find it useful.

-Peff