On 5/17/19 2:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 02:22:47PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
On 5/17/19 1:06 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
That repository
represents what I consider the collaboratively built consensus on such
things as the desired author map (including handling of the ambiguous
author name), which directories represent branches and tags, and what tags
should be kept or removed - but building up such a consensus and keeping
About the map. I agree with Richard that we should do best approach and not
to fully reconstruct history of people who has switched email address multi
times. I cloned git://thyrsus.com/repositories/gcc-conversion.git and made
a clean up:
- for logins with duplicite emails I chose the latest one used on gcc-patches
mailing list
- comments were removed
- a few entries contained timezone and I stripped that
Final version of the map can be seen here:
https://github.com/marxin/gcc-git-conversion/blob/cleanup/gcc.map
@Maxim: would it be possible to update your script so that it will use:
--authors-file=gcc.map ?
Is it desired for the transition to use the author map? Do we want it?
Can people proposing the conversion also come up with the precommit hooks
etc. scripts we'll need?
Can you please point out to a discussion where these were mentioned?
I'm aware of 'no-merge-commits hook' and a hook that will paste commit
message to bugzilla entries.
I'd think we want to enforce linear history (and stress that every commit
should be bootstrappable, with git it is much easier to screw that up by
pushing many git commits at once, even with rebase actually not testing each
of them).
And something to keep the numeric commit numbers working for
http://gcc.gnu.org/rNNNNNN (I believe a roughly working scheme has been
identified, but not implemented).
Do we really need a commit integer numbers after the transition? I know we're
used to it.
But git commit hash provides that same.
Martin
Jakub
