This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Repository for the conversion machinery
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:47:03 -0600
- Subject: Re: Repository for the conversion machinery
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150827143810 dot GA10920 at thyrsus dot com> <1440768782 dot 5089 dot 33 dot camel at otta> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508281347060 dot 5939 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150828150239 dot GB9723 at thyrsus dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508281518160 dot 5939 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508281520090 dot 5939 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <55E081EA dot 7080304 at redhat dot com> <20150828155724 dot GB10894 at thyrsus dot com> <55E0994E dot 9070207 at redhat dot com> <CAJeAr6sw3NmGLrXYGcLMkXL9THgU6Odb0KrCJAJud6sKB3ob2w at mail dot gmail dot com> <y0m37yf2lhi dot fsf at fche dot csb> <CAJeAr6uwGtjw5MHbVEGbH5Phd_q7KfL+B2vuTEo-LP1LCTMrOw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 09/16/2015 09:26 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
So true, but as you note, it'd probably be a ton of additional work to
preserve that level of history.
On 15 September 2015 at 21:36, Frank Ch. Eigler <email@example.com> wrote:
cagney = Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Good point. The email identities of people change over time; forcing
a single arbitrary one to label all contributions is at best imprecise
and at worse a miscrediting. (This is one way in which the impersonal
USERID@gcc.gnu.org aliases work better.)
It strikes me as the least bad and quickest option. It also best
reflects how CVS and SVN deal with identities.
(Would it go hand-in-hand with a git commit hook ensuring that future
commits preserve this convention? Just asking)
Two other options come to mind:
- preserve history
That is create a repo that gives the appearance that we had git all
along. It would be high quality, useful, and most git-like; and also
one hell of a lot of work :-/ For instance, it might include commits
Andrew Cagney <email@example.com>
Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Andrew Cagney <email@example.com>
Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
While they are all the same individual, they reflect different points
in time. If we'd had git all along then this, I believe, is what the
repository would have contained. There would certainly be no
expectation that 20 year old addresses were still valid, or that they
I think this is main reason why @gnu.org or @gmail.com style addresses
are preferred over employer addresses when there's > 1 address on file.
- rewrite history - use some totally arbitrary, and quickly outdated,
ps. Good to hear from you... It's been a long time.