Re: gitpacker progress report and a question

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 27, 2012, 08:20 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1=sjWypEN3zzC=aPqZYnBFU0C+Dhrh3zj=jY57PHJ6wg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121127072700.GA23169@thyrsus.com>

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
>> 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