Any plans/needs to extend the fast-import format?

[Ian Clatworthy]

Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

>> Life would be *so* much
>> simplier for me, and every other fast-export developer, if the semantics
>> were 'vs last commit' as opposed to 'incremental'.
> 
> Yes, this is true.  As soon as we have a "feature oh-please-make-it-sane"
> supported, everyone will produce with it, because not doing so is nuts.

There are now fast-exporters from CVS, Subversion, Perforce, Darcs,
Bazaar, Git, Mercurial and Monotone. I wonder what percentage already
produce "oh-please-make-it-sane" format without realising it? :-)

> I don't know, do you want to support streams made by tools that don't
> know this "feature fix-shawns-fking-mistake"?

> What do we call this feature?  file-commands-apply-to-committed-state
> is rather long, and might be descriptive, but I've had to think
> about it for a minute to realize what you are trying to say here,
> and I wrote git-fast-import.

> I don't have any good suggestions on thie name
> for this feature.  I've given you two more equally bad ones above.

I like the second one myself. :-) I'm not sure others will have enough
context to appreciate that choice though.

How about something like this?

feature basis-for-changes = (last-commit|last-command)

Ian C.