Re: gitpacker progress report and a question
- From
Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com>
- Date
- Nov 27, 2012, 08:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20121127083639.GA26935@thyrsus.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAMP44s1=sjWypEN3zzC=aPqZYnBFU0C+Dhrh3zj=jY57PHJ6wg@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> Most of those old projects have a linear history,
INTERCAL didn't. There were two branches for platform ports.
> 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 don't do half-assed jobs. Not ever, no way, nohow.
-- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>