On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> You conjectured earlier that nobody uses blob marks, and I provided a
> counterexample. Then you proposed a workaround that would require
> changes to the cvs2git documentation, and I even explained how your
> proposed workaround is not as flexible as the status quo.
cvs2git does *not* need blob marks, it does not need marks at all.
The use-case that you mentioned has nothing to do with cvs2git, in
fact. I can be described as this:
% ./generate-blobs > blobs
% git fast-import --export-marks=marks < blobs
% ./generate-commits > commits
% git fast-import --import-marks=marks < commits
In this example 'generate-commits' has no notion of marks at all, and
'git fast-import' doesn't need marks to process both blobs and
> Do you want
> to go through the same argument with every possible user of git-fast-import?
I don't care about possible users, I care about *real* users.
> It would be insanity to change the default behavior when a workaround on
> the Git side (namely adding an option that tells git-fast-import *not*
> to emit blob marks) would be quite straightforward to implement and have
> little maintenance cost.
And nobody would benefit from that.
>>> Making the export of blob marks optional would of course be OK, as long
>>> as the default is to export them.
>> Nobody benefits from leaving the default as it is.
> Sure they do. Any tool that *knows* that it doesn't need blob marks can
> pass the new option and benefit. Other tools benefit from not being
> broken by your change.
Which the *vastly* more common case? That blobs are needed, or that
they are not?
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