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
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 10:58:05PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > If you guys want to ever finish, you'll need to drop the quest for
> > perfection, because this leads to a) much more work, and b) worse quality
> > in the end.
>
> To me, that indicates that using a conversion tool that is conservative in
> its heuristics, and then selectively applying improvements to the extent
> they can be done safely with manual review in a reasonable time, is better
> than applying a conversion tool with more aggressive heuristics.
Then you need to just completely drop this, and always use
<username@gcc.gnu.org>, because a large percentage will get that anyway
then. Which is fine with me, fwiw: it's correct, and it's a little
inconvenient perhaps, but it doesn't really make the result less usable
at all.
Precisely like weird merges on svn tags that aren't even on a branch.
Perfect is the enemy of ever getting a conversion done.
> The issues with the reposurgeon conversion listed in Maxim's last comments
> were of the form "reposurgeon is being conservative in how it generates
> metadata from SVN information". I think that's a very good basis for
> adding on a limited set of safe improvements to authors and commit
> messages that can be done reasonably soon and then doing the final
> conversion with reposurgeon.
No, we want to *see* why it would be better than the alternatives, what
the differences are.
Segher