On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx>: >> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html