Hi Laszlo, On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:58:31 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 08/10/15 09:43, Jean Delvare wrote: > > OK, I think I came up with something that looks reasonably good: > > > > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/dmidecode.git > > > > Can anyone please check it out and verify that it looks sane and can be > > worked with? > > I cloned it and built it with "make". (That's all the "testing" I did. :))
Thanks for testing and reporting. > Ideas: > - please consider tagging commits that correspond to releases The conversion already did exactly that as far as I can see: dmidecode$ git tag dmidecode-1-8 dmidecode-2-0 dmidecode-2-1 dmidecode-2-10 dmidecode-2-11 dmidecode-2-12 dmidecode-2-2 dmidecode-2-3 dmidecode-2-4 dmidecode-2-5 dmidecode-2-6 dmidecode-2-7 dmidecode-2-8 dmidecode-2-9 And the tags appear in the web frontend too so my attempt to push them there must have worked. > - probably useful to tag the git commit somehow that marks the switch > from CVS to git (eg. "last_patch_from_cvs"). The conversion guide suggested tagging the cvs repository and I intend to do so. But tagging the git repository seems like adding noise to me, I can't see why anybody should care about the migration point. > - after building, "git status" lists the *.o files and the built > binaries as untracked files. For the former, please add a .gitignore > file. For the latter, please list them individually in .gitignore too, > or else build things in a separate directory, and ignore everything > inside that directory. I had noticed too and that was on my to-do list. Now this is done, thanks for the reminder. Please pull again and "git status" should be quiet now. > > If it's OK then I'll tag the CVS repository as deprecated. > > If you can ascertain that the latest tree in git (at > "last_patch_from_cvs") matches the latest tree in CVS (with a recursive > diff excluding the SCM meta-dirs), there's no reason to delay switching I already did that comparison and the result is positive. > to git. If you realize later that something's "wrong", you can format > the new patches from git and reapply them to CVS. (But I don't expect > anything to go wrong.) I am more worried about the history being incorrect, due to incorrect or missing options during the conversion. That being said, the history of dmidecode is very simple (which is why I did not bother switching to git so far) so hopefully the basic settings were good enough. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
