From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 100041 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2019 16:04:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 100033 invoked by uid 89); 16 Dec 2019 16:04:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=delaying, schedules, our X-HELO: us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) (205.139.110.61) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:04:54 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1576512293; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=kGP6j3UvzlYQTBSEmiGftJTbDsXIlSZ0z6AEzlZOZWM=; b=A6jYchDJzuBvcEB5mHeFJlMA32xLtSpw/O6pC3xAY1wVhbnpsCGdpCHmc5egfNsfU+/TAP v6LzO2nXrDjWIkFWLW/HdKUSv+GjBp7JxtWog8/MSvG2FgOIbtoHG+ZUNNOH0dWoo0iTvm idl3E3oczSCjkyL103PIK5tfGs6J5R0= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-168-jQTrQzvmMtW-swLQCMOzHQ-1; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:04:49 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC5A5100550E; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-112-27.phx2.redhat.com (ovpn-112-27.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.112.27]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A8B7C819; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:04:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <472727a6df343073911d07008ca361b42167038a.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT From: Jeff Law Reply-To: law@redhat.com To: esr@thyrsus.com, Segher Boessenkool Cc: Mark Wielaard , Joseph Myers , Maxim Kuvyrkov , "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20191216135451.GA3142@thyrsus.com> References: <1685e719-738f-dd4e-c39c-c08e495b202e@arm.com> <9E009921-96EA-44A2-A06A-232711227E69@linaro.org> <20191216133632.GC3152@gate.crashing.org> <20191216135451.GA3142@thyrsus.com> User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 (3.34.2-1.fc31) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00237.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 08:54 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Segher Boessenkool : > > > Do people really want to keep tweaking the conversions and postpone the > > > git switchover? > > > > No. > > It may not be my place to say, but...I think the stakes are pretty > high here. If I were a GCC developer, I think I'd want the best > possible conversion even if that takes a little longer. Well, I'm not sure that's entirely true. I do a ton of historical digging, possibly more than anyone else involved with GCC. The git-svn mirror has been sufficient for that for years, even with the warts that folks have pointed out. Given that, delaying to achieve a perfect conversion is, IMHO, just silly. I don't mind delaying a few days here or there because we want to do verification, or to line up better with our own development schedules. What I don't want to do is delay because any particular tool is still being tweaked to get closer to that "perfect" conversion. So the question I would ask is the state of each converter today and how they compare to each other. That argues we need time to compare the result, which as I noted above is fine by me. But we ought to be comparing the converter's state as of right now. Jeff