Re: gitpacker progress report and a question

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Eric S. Raymond [off-list ref] wrote:

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref]:

quoted

I believe that log file is much more human readable. Yet I still fail
to see why would anybody want so much detail only to import tarballs.

In both cases the object was to assemble a coherent history
from all the available metadata as if the projects had been using
version control all along.

I didn't say I couldn't see why somebody would need such a tool, I
said I couldn't see why somebody would need such a tool _with so much
detail_.

Most of those old projects have a linear history, so a log file like
this would suffice:

tag v0.1 gst-av-0.1.tar "Release 0.1"
tag v0.2 gst-av-0.2.tar "Release 0.2"
tag v0.3 gst-av-0.3.tar "Release 0.3"

And if they really had release branches, it shouldn't be difficult to
modify it for:

tag v0.1 gst-av-0.1.tar "Release 0.1"
tag v0.2 gst-av-0.2.tar "Release 0.2"
tag v0.2.1 gst-av-0.2.tar "Release 0.2.1"
checkout v0.2
tag v0.3 gst-av-0.3.tar "Release 0.3"

But different commit/author and respective dates, and merges? Sounds
like overkill.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras