Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT

Iain Sandoe iain@sandoe.co.uk
Fri Jan 10 12:09:00 GMT 2020


Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 ;)

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  
Joseph’s
recommendation.

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  
information

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

thanks again
Iain



More information about the Gcc mailing list