On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 10:58:05PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > > If you guys want to ever finish, you'll need to drop the quest for > > perfection, because this leads to a) much more work, and b) worse quality > > in the end. > > To me, that indicates that using a conversion tool that is conservative in > its heuristics, and then selectively applying improvements to the extent > they can be done safely with manual review in a reasonable time, is better > than applying a conversion tool with more aggressive heuristics.
Then you need to just completely drop this, and always use <usern...@gcc.gnu.org>, because a large percentage will get that anyway then. Which is fine with me, fwiw: it's correct, and it's a little inconvenient perhaps, but it doesn't really make the result less usable at all. Precisely like weird merges on svn tags that aren't even on a branch. Perfect is the enemy of ever getting a conversion done. > The issues with the reposurgeon conversion listed in Maxim's last comments > were of the form "reposurgeon is being conservative in how it generates > metadata from SVN information". I think that's a very good basis for > adding on a limited set of safe improvements to authors and commit > messages that can be done reasonably soon and then doing the final > conversion with reposurgeon. No, we want to *see* why it would be better than the alternatives, what the differences are. Segher
