Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT

[Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>]

On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 11:29 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 
> > Should we go with the gcc-reparent.git repo now?
> 
> I think we should go with the reposurgeon conversion, with all Richard's 
> improvements to commit messages.  gcc-reparent.git has issues of its own; 
> at least, checking the list of branches shows some branches are missing.  
> So both conversions can still be considered works in progress.

I thought we would pick the best available conversion today.
If we keep tweaking the conversions till they are "perfect" we probably
never reach that point.

> However, we should also note that stage 3 is intended to last two months, 
> ending with the move to git 
> <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00143.html> 
> <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-11/msg00117.html>, and given that it 
> didn't start at the start of November as anticipated in the originally 
> proposed timetable, that implies corresponding updates to all the dates.  
> By now, enough people are away until the new year that now isn't a good 
> time for deciding things anyway.

The idea was to do it while most people were away to have the least
impact. The timeline https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GitConversion does say we
can slip for logistical reasons the read-only date (2019/12/31) by a
few days.

Do people really want to keep tweaking the conversions and postpone the
git switchover? What would the new timetable be then?

Cheers,

Mark