Re: gitpacker progress report and a question

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 27, 2012, 08:51 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s0ctVh3cbJF3rykGKn-ZH5qQfwaX-=G+MT1jhU6vK=WYw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121127083639.GA26935@thyrsus.com>

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:

> 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.

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.

Show 8 quoted lines

>> 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