Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT

[Joseph Myers]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 05:07:48PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > Yes.  It should be possible to confirm branch tip conversions and other 
> > properties of the repository (e.g. that all branch tips are properly 
> > descended from the first commit on trunk except for the specific branches 
> > that shouldn't be) once my current conversions have finished running.
> 
> Please do that for Maxim's conversion as well then?
> 
> (If the way you do the verification requires reposurgeon, the
> verification methodology itself is fatally flawed).

It does not require reposurgeon.  The inputs for verification of branch 
tips are (a) a list of correspondences between SVN paths and git refs and 
(b) the SVN revision number at which those refs should correspond to those 
SVN paths.  A list can readily be generated for any git repository not 
using too complicated a mapping from SVN branch names (with a more 
complicated mapping, it's natural for the process modifying the names also 
to generate the list for use in verification).

> > * Richard's improvements to commit messages are a great improvement to the 
> > resulting repository (and it's OK if a small percentage end up misleading 
> > because someone used the wrong PR number, sometimes people use the wrong 
> > commit message or commit changes they didn't mean to and so having some 
> > misleading messages is unavoidable).
> 
> As long as the original commit message is kept, verbatim, and you only
> add a new summary line, all is fine.  If not -> nope, not okay.

That is how it works.  A new summary line is added, with the original 
message kept verbatim after that.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com