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 jos...@codesourcery.com
