On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx>: >> 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. >> 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 -- 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