This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Acceptance criteria for the git conversion
- From: Mikhail Maltsev <maltsevm at gmail dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at foss dot arm dot com>
- Cc: esr at thyrsus dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 21:39:28 +0300
- Subject: Re: Acceptance criteria for the git conversion
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150901105414 dot GA30270 at thyrsus dot com> <55E5B5A2 dot 7070509 at gmail dot com> <55E5B934 dot 1050307 at foss dot arm dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1509011703550 dot 11400 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 09/01/2015 08:11 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> Renaming the files during the conversion is clearly *not* the right
>> thing to do: it would break all builds of old code.
> Indeed. Ideally the tree objects in the git conversion should have
> exactly the same contents as SVN commits, and so be shared with the
> git-svn history to reduce the eventual repository size (except where there
> are defects in the git-svn history, or the git conversion fixes up cvs2svn
> artifacts and so some old revisions end up more accurately reflecting old
> history than the SVN repository does).
Actually, I did not propose to alter the repository history. I just meant to say that
if .c -> .cc renaming is still planned, it could be done right after conversion, as a
normal commit, or, perhaps series of commits on trunk and active development