Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT

[Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> Most of us are perfectly happy even with the current git mirror, for
> old commits.  We want "real" git to make the workflow for new commits
> better.
> 
> No more delays, _please_.

The timetable is a useful guideline.  It should not be our master when 
there are clear improvements with implementations already available; 
waiting to the actual end of stage 3 makes sense (when waiting another 
year would not make sense).  When we're talking about something to be used 
for the next 20 years we should make sure to get it right.

All conversions clearly need more validation work.  That missing branches 
in Maxim's conversion could be noted only today clearly shows that 
validation of that conversion is also at a very early stage (and 
conversions with an ad hoc script need much more thorough, trickier 
validation because you don't benefit from knowing the tool has worked for 
other conversions).

> If the reposurgeon conversion is not ready now, then it is too late
> to be selected.

I believe it's at least as ready as Maxim's.  The last public version has 
some known issues, most of those have been addressed since that conversion 
run, others are being addressed.  I fully expect it would in fact be in a 
good state to run the final conversion on the original dates, even though 
those are before the end of stage 3.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com