This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Repository for the conversion machinery
- From: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
- To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:26:18 -0400
- 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>
On 15 September 2015 at 21:36, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>> cagney = Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>
>> cagney@gnu.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
by:
Andrew Cagney <cagney@highland.com.au>
Andrew Cagney <cagney@b1.cygnus.com>
Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.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
need "fixing".
- rewrite history - use some totally arbitrary, and quickly outdated,
internet identity
To me this makes the least sense. If I change my name/contact do I
have the repo rewritten with that new information? Am I forever
required to use an arbitrarily assigned identity? Hardly.