This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Acceptance criteria for the git conversion

With the machinery for the git conversion now in reasonable shape, it's
time to ask GCC's developers in general:  what do you want this
conversion to accomplish?

There are some obvious things we might expect it to accomplish, like

(1) Encouraging people to do finer-grained commits because the operation is
    so much faster.

(2) Attract developers who think Subversion is clunky and old-fashioned.

(3) Enable bisection as a bug-localization technique.

But there's not much Jason or I can do to advance *those* goals; any
conversion except one that's too crappy to be usable would accomplish them.

What I'm interested in, as I assist the process, is how your desires
ought to affect what we do during the conversion.

As a trivial example of the possibilities, sometimes when I do conversions
I fix obvious comment typos. I generally have to edit the comment history anyway
to tweak comments that don't have git-style summary lines into shape, so
fixing typos is not much additional work.

What kind of mechanical transformation or hand-editing would add value for you?
		<a href="";>Eric S. Raymond</a>

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]