Re: gitpacker progress report and a question

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Eric S. Raymond [off-list ref] wrote:

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref]:

quoted

Most of those old projects have a linear history,

INTERCAL didn't.  There were two branches for platform ports.

Fine:

tag v0.1 gst-av-0.1.tar "Release 0.1"
tag v0.2 gst-av-0.2.tar "Release 0.2"
checkout port1
tag v0.2-p1 gst-av-0.2-p1.tar "Release 0.2 p1"
checkout port2 v0.2
tag v0.2-p2 gst-av-0.2-p2.tar "Release 0.2 p2"
checkout master
tag v0.3 gst-av-0.3.tar "Release 0.3"

Problem solved.

quoted

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

I felt it was important that the metadata format be able to specify
git's entire metadata and DAG semantics.  Otherwise, as sure as the
sun rises, *somebody* would run into a corner case not covered, and
(quite rightly) curse me for a shortsighted fool who had done a
half-assed job.

I'm willing to bet that won't happen.

I don't do half-assed jobs.  Not ever, no way, nohow.

So you prefer code that is way more complicated that it needs to be,
and with a higher likelihood of introducing bugs? There's a point of
diminishing returns where the code that nobody uses causes bugs for
real use-cases. That's not good.

I prefer code that does one thing, and does it well. And when the need
arises, evolve.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras