From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25632 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2019 16:47:28 -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 25621 invoked by uid 89); 29 Dec 2019 16:47:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=cheers, separately, H*F:U*mark, imports X-HELO: gnu.wildebeest.org Received: from wildebeest.demon.nl (HELO gnu.wildebeest.org) (212.238.236.112) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:47:25 +0000 Received: from tarox.wildebeest.org (tarox.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C3D0300BF39; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:47:23 +0100 (CET) Received: by tarox.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 23768408F172; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:47:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <7ea14d8c8909609f9cb7525eb119514909fe7d4a.camel@klomp.org> Subject: Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT From: Mark Wielaard To: Segher Boessenkool , Alexandre Oliva Cc: Jeff Law , Joseph Myers , "Eric S. Raymond" , Maxim Kuvyrkov , "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:47:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20191225121024.GK4505@gate.crashing.org> References: <20191216133632.GC3152@gate.crashing.org> <20191216135451.GA3142@thyrsus.com> <20191216140514.GD3152@gate.crashing.org> <20191216153649.GE3152@gate.crashing.org> <20191225121024.GK4505@gate.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00511.txt.bz2 Hi, On Wed, 2019-12-25 at 06:10 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > git-svn did not miss any branches. Finding branches is not done by > git-svn at all, for this. These branches were skipped because they > have nothing to do with GCC, have no history in common (they are not > descendants of revision 1). They can easily be added -- Maxim might > already have done that, not sure, imo it's better to just drop the > garbage, it's in svn if anyone cares. I just looked at one of these "missed" branches CLASSPATH. That was created when both GNU Classpath and gcc/libgcj were both in cvs. The idea was that it was a kind of cvs vendor branch of the upstream GNU Classpath releases (and some random checkouts) which would make merging imports of new code into the main trunk easier. libgcj was merged and then based on GNU Classpath in the past/when it was officially imported into gcc. The CLASSPATH branch only contains files under libjava/classpath. Some of the commits look a little odd, probably because it was converted from cvs2svn and then again to git. GNU Classpath moved to git a long time ago and never was in subversion. And of course these days gcj and libgcj aren't part of the main gcc trunk anymore. There is also a classpath-generics branch, which has a couple of snapshots of the GNU Classpath generics branch (some pre-releases of classpath before 0.95 which had generics separately). There are also some other branches containing classpath: gcj/classpath-095-import-branch gcj/classpath-095-merge-branch gcj/classpath-0961-import-branch gcj/classpath-098-merge-branch gcj/classpath-20070727-import-branch These branches contain all of gcc, not just the files under libjava/classpath I am not sure why these were separate from the CLASSPATH vendor branch. Even though I have an (historical) interest in the gcj frontend and GNU Classpath class library I am not sure these branches would really help me. Also I think the branch aren't very interesting without the actual GNU Classpath (git) tree history from which they were cherry-picked. The classpath git tree does contain tags for each import already, so you can get the real history there. Seeing how big the git tree/conversion already is I would suggest leaving these out of the main git repo if at all possible. Maybe we should have a separate historical git repo which contains everything that we were able to salvage and that people could git remote add if they are really, really interested. Cheers, Mark