On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > And the current mirror is "right", already, as Jeff said at the Cauldron > (a minute before we unanymously decided to do the conversion soon; this > is over three months ago already).
All the discussion at the Cauldron tells us is many people like the idea of moving to git and it not taking forever. Inviting a crowd to agree with a proposition is not a useful way to judge the technical merits of any particular detailed conversion approach. > > That missing branches > > in Maxim's conversion could be noted only today clearly shows that > > ... clearly shows that *no one cares* about those branches. Since Maxim said that all branches were present, that indicates a lack of validation, and a lack of validation by other people since then. Checking the set of branches and tags present is one of the most basic checks on a conversion to identify problems. > > I believe it's at least as ready as Maxim's. > > I do not agree. You say the reposurgeon conversion is not ready today. > Maxim's conversion has been ready for many months. I believe it's ready in the form of source code (gcc-conversion repository and newsvn3 branch in the reposurgeon repository). I'm running a test conversion to check this and produce the binary form (converted git repository); conversions just take a while to run. With correctness issues having been addressed, we're working on performance issues, and I'm running a second test conversion on a second machine with both a patch I've just written that passes reposurgeon's tests and I hope will save about 8 hours on the conversion time, and further performance improvements that went in overnight that should save some more hours via saving memory usage. (A significant proportion of the time for a conversion is spent by git-fast-import reading the fast-import stream, which places a lower bound of a few hours on the time taken for a conversion even if everything outside of git is infinitely fast.) -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
