On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Eric S. Raymond <e...@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com>:
>> Most of those old projects have a linear history,
> INTERCAL didn't. There were two branches for platform ports.
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-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"
tag v0.3 gst-av-0.3.tar "Release 0.3"
>> 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
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html