Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT

Iain Sandoe
Fri Jan 10 12:09:00 GMT 2020

Richard Biener <> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:49 AM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> <> wrote:
>> On 10/01/2020 07:33, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>>> On Jan 9, 2020, at 5:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool  
>>>> <> 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 <>
>> "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 <>
>> "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) <>
>> 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 ;)

Thanks to all those who’ve put (a lot of) effort into doing this work and  
those who’ve
challenged and tested the conversions, for my part, I am also happy to take  

One minor nit (and accepted that this might be too late).

mail commit messages like this:
[gcc-reposurgeon-8(refs/users/jsm28/heads/test-branch)] Test git hooks  
interaction with Bugzilla.

seem to have a title stretched by redundant infomation ;
at least "users/jsm28/test-branch” would seem to contain all the necessary  

will commits in the user namespace appear on the mailing list in the end?

thanks again

More information about the Gcc mailing list