This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:49 AM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
<Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Just to chime in I also just want to get it done (well, I can handle
SVN as well :P).
I trust Joseph, too, but then from my POV anything not worse than the current
mirror works for me.  Thanks to Maxim anyway for all the work - without that
we'd not switch in 10 other years...

Btw, "consensus" among the quiet doesn't usually work and "consensus" among
the most vocal isn't really "consensus".  I think GCC (and FOSS) works by
giving power to those who actually do the work.  Doesn't make it easier when
there are two, of course ;)

Richard.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]