This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:49:36 -0600
- Subject: Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 9/17/19 6:02 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> At the Cauldron this weekend the overwhelming view for the move to GIT
> soon was finally expressed.
[ ... proposal itself ... ]
So there's nothing in the proposal I would object to, nor do I object to
being slightly flexible. If we need to move the transition a few days
into the new year because of developer availability, that seems fine.
Similarly if we want to move up the date for a decision to be made
that's fine as well so long as the potentially affected parties are
notified ASAP what that date is.
With the SVN repo going read-only it becomes our fallback plan in case
of major unexpected problems.
Joseph's recommendation for having the old objects/refs in the new repo
makes a lot of sense. So if it works, it's got my support as well.
Anyway, just wanted to chime in with my support for the plan and make it
clear that as long as we get a conversion that is as good as or better
than the mirror is now that I'll be happy :-)