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

["Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>]

On 10/01/2020 07:33, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2020, at 5:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 11:34:32PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > As noted on overseers, once Saturday's DATESTAMP update has run at 00:16
> > > UTC on Saturday, I intend to add a README.MOVED_TO_GIT file on SVN trunk
> > > and change the SVN hooks to make SVN readonly, then disable gccadmin's
> > > cron jobs that build snapshots and update online documentation until they
> > > are ready to run with the git repository.  Once the existing git mirror
> > > has picked up the last changes I'll make that read-only and disable that
> > > cron job as well, and start the conversion process with a view to having
> > > the converted repository in place this weekend (it could either be made
> > > writable as soon as I think it's ready, or left read-only until people
> > > have had time to do any final checks on Monday).  Before then, I'll work
> > > on hooks, documentation and maintainer-scripts updates.
> >
> > Where and when and by who was it decided to use this conversion?
>
> Joseph, please point to message on gcc@ mailing list that expresses consensus of GCC community to use reposurgeon conversion.  Otherwise, it is not appropriate to substitute one's opinion for community consensus.

I've gone back through this thread (if I've missed, or misrepresented, 
anybody who's expressed an opinion I apologize now).

Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
"If Joseph and Richard agree a candidate is good, then I will agree as
well.  All that can be left is nit-picking, and that is not worth it
anyway:"

Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
"When Richard and I spoke we generally agreed that we felt a reposurgeon
conversion, if it could be made to work was the preferred solution,
followed by Maxim's approach and lastly the existing git-svn mirror."

Richard Earnshaw (lists) <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
FWIW, I now support using reposurgeon for the final conversion.

And, of course, I'm taking Joseph's opinion as read :-)

So I don't see any clear dissent and most folks just want to get this 
done.

> I want GCC community to get the best possible conversion, being it mine or reposurgeon's.  To this end I'm comparing the two conversions and will post my results later today.

> Unfortunately, the comparison is complicated by the fact that you uploaded only "b" version of gcc-reposurgeon-8 repository, which uses modified branch layout (or confirm that there are no substantial differences between "7" and "8" reposurgeon conversions).

The main differences are

a) more revisions added due to commits upstream
b) release tags from SVN era now on the main release branch rather than 
in sidings
c) more author fixups from Joseph's cross validation against your 
repository and reposurgeon's own reports of suspect attributions


R.
> --
> Maxim Kuvyrkov
> https://www.linaro.org