This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>, Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim dot kuvyrkov at linaro dot org>, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <esr at thyrsus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:07:48 +0000
- Subject: Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT
- Ironport-sdr: qopA3yNODn4e4RGuTlEA5wEy93d6xbWfLw6XTLdz2nQKTpGsljzF9kvr4i70jgugWadKIW9VcO f8PuFEehCGztVurj7/U1wTLP8fvoTSYplE4TBQdQ6lGqsza1JeFMTLWWdulglCM7IRLpj+z5NI viGoskym6zgWtzH3GaDuNzOtRZvlv4PFrrKZDn5Iap/NoE/x/n5IqGEqvk1TaDOaPF4csvsHcn 4qkfDSwyot2O2UkH9ePKghHVcP6r8LxoJTMtp5I4a10solptGP+9LubVB7WcIGo49HFN8Mzfb+ oVA=
- Ironport-sdr: JFcnuYYn3NNr0YGEywGSNk7BLIKD5yNy60NeSSexnZpxJsUi8K0qSA/FQ1LYdrrmytCSXikGAk 0SJTSUdekzipPVHvfdPRa+YyKADxL4dUizxtiHtgKeIjTD3tGKYfeIwy0uZ3GZXRTFbGWRgczm 96fpfpX3t0I4Tfpm09pj2A3z19upbdX08likP0lAyLyHsaEMV/YXLP7R5eEJSiL7VPbDYijQ2+ u51yRHO0ijDDAsUpEh2J746AMChm7hsx41liy/rNjutkKGdeLpRnfQ95mssbk+KEmUIYW7G7fy EmE=
- References: <1685e719-738f-dd4e-c39c-c08e495b202e@arm.com> <9E009921-96EA-44A2-A06A-232711227E69@linaro.org> <BEB3D1BD-86C3-4B1A-A1BB-62461A7DCAD8@linaro.org> <da35e7b40c21d0b880199143cc4b64a393368e8d.camel@klomp.org> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1912161117300.3352@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <0fb81074d87c96b3312565800b8bfc25cfcbe179.camel@redhat.com>
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Jeff Law wrote:
> 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.
> So it seems like your position is that the reposurgeon conversion is as
> good as or better than conversion from Maxim's scripts.
Yes. It should be possible to confirm branch tip conversions and other
properties of the repository (e.g. that all branch tips are properly
descended from the first commit on trunk except for the specific branches
that shouldn't be) once my current conversions have finished running.
I think there may well be things to *learn* from Maxim's conversion to
improve the reposurgeon one further (if they don't take that long to
implement). In particular, we should look carefully at the commit
attributions in both conversions and Maxim's may well give ideas for
improving the reposurgeon changelogs command (Richard came up with three
ideas recently, which I've just filed in the reposurgeon issue tracker).
But I also think:
* reposurgeon is a safer approach than ad hoc scripts, provided we get
clean verification of basic properties such as branch tip contents.
* Richard's improvements to commit messages are a great improvement to the
resulting repository (and it's OK if a small percentage end up misleading
because someone used the wrong PR number, sometimes people use the wrong
commit message or commit changes they didn't mean to and so having some
misleading messages is unavoidable).
* As we're part of the free software community as a whole rather than
something in isolation, choosing to make a general-purpose tool work for
our conversion is somewhat preferable to choosing an ad hoc approach
because it contributes something of value for other repository conversions
by other projects in future.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com