Commit messages and the move to git

[Richard Earnshaw (lists)]

On 02/12/2019 18:00, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 05:47:08PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 02/12/2019 17:25, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:18:59PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>>> On 02/12/2019 15:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 10:54:17AM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>>>>>   - author attributions are sometimes incorrect - reported
>>>>>
>>>>> This would disqualify that "conversion", for me at least.  Keeping all
>>>>> warts we had in SVN is better than adding new lies, lies about important
>>>>> matters even.
>>>> Indeed, but it's easy to turn off the option that tries to do this, if
>>>> it can't be made to work correctly.  We'd then be back with the existing
>>>> 'author == committer' situation.
>>>
>>> But we need to be *sure* this is done correctly.  The only safe thing
>>> to do is to turn off all such options, if we cannot trust them.
>>
>> Of course.  But that's a decision that can be made quite late, because
>> we know we *can* turn them off if we want to.
> 
> Do we postpone the transition another few months because we have to check
> all commits for mistakes the conversion tool made because it tried to be
> "smart"?
> 
> Or will we rush in these changes, unnecessary errors and all, because
> people have invested time in doing this?
> 
> It is not a decision that can be made late.  It is a *design decision*.
> 
> 

It's a one-line edit to the lift script.  So it's a conversion *choice*.

R.