[PATCH 1/3] Add export project as mbox management command

[Stephen Finucane]

[re-adding the list]

On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 14:44 +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:39 PM Stephen Finucane <stephen at that.guru> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-07-15 at 16:50 +0200, Mete Polat wrote:

[snip]

> > > +    def add_arguments(self, parser):
> > > +        parser.add_argument(
> > > +            '-c', '--compress', action='store_true',
> > > +            help='Bundle and compress projects.'
> > > +        )
> > > +        parser.add_argument(
> > > +            '-l', '--level', action='store', type=int, default=9,
> > > +            help='Set a compression level between 0 and 9 (default). 0 is no '
> > > +                 'compression. '
> > > +        )
> > 
> > Do we need this knob? It seems defaulting to 9 if the '-c' flag is
> > provided would be fine for 90% of users?
> 
> I am wondering if we need compression at all.
> 
> Following the UNIX philosophy (only do Make each program do one thing
> well.), I would expect that the management command can either generate
> files/an archive file or I can configure it to output the file/the
> archive to standard output.
> I can then simply compress by pipe-ing that to any other compression utility.
> 
> Stephen, Mete, what do you think?

That's a fair point but I'm not sure how we could support both dumping
to stdout and multiple projects: how would you decide which patches
belonged to which project? Looking at the logic here though, I do think
we could tweak it slightly. Could we *always* generate a tarball,
regardless of the number of projects, and optionally compress it if we
decide to keep the '--compress' flag? I've drafted this and it looks
good to me. I also think we might want to rename the command
'dumparchive' to match with 'parsearchive'. I'm happy to rework on both
counts. Thoughts?

Stephen