This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Acceptance criteria for the git conversion
- From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr at thyrsus dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:30:36 -0400
- Subject: Re: Acceptance criteria for the git conversion
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150901105414 dot GA30270 at thyrsus dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1509011245480 dot 11400 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
- Reply-to: esr at thyrsus dot com
Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>:
> With 227369 revisions I don't think adding git-style summary lines is
> really practical without some very reliable automation to match commits to
> corresponding gcc-patches messages (whose Subject: headers would be the
> natural choice for such summary lines)....
In this case you may be right. Select =L tells me there are 101139
commits wanting that sort of adjustment, which I think is at least
2.5x the bulk I've ever had to deal with before.
Still, if anyone else is brave enough to write a script that will munch
through gcc-patches producing committer/date/subject-line triples, I'll
give it a try.
About scale: The largest repository I've dealt with before this was
NetBSD, with a working set of 18GB, vs 45GB for this one. The way reposurgeon's
internal representations work, working set is dominated by comment text. So
the GCC repo has about 2.5x the comment bulk of NetBSD.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>