This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:49:41AM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 10/01/2020 07:33, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> >>On Jan 9, 2020, at 5:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> >><email@example.com> wrote:
> >>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 <firstname.lastname@example.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
That is not saying I agree the reposurgeon conversion is best if you two
agree. It says that if you think that is a good conversion, then I agree.
However I do still think it is the worst of the three options, in some
> So I don't see any clear dissent and most folks just want to get this
Yes. After the GCC community took over five years to decide to switch
to git, and then we were delayed by another almost five years because it
just *had* to be done using reposurgeon, we just want it *done*, and even
the reposurgeon option is acceptable, in my book.
I don't look at old commit messages *at all* (*). Mangled patch authors
can be harder, but I do have old trees as well, worst case. We'll
survive, the info in the changelogs is still there. And hopefully new
patches will eventually have good author info and commit messages.
To a gitty future, onwards and upwards, etc.,
(*) That's a lie: I look at it a lot, but only to extract the SVN
revision number from it!