Subject: Re: gitpacker progress report and a question

From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 03:36:39 -0500

Felipe Contreras <[email-masked]>:
> 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>