From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18459 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2019 15:49:44 -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 18414 invoked by uid 89); 20 Sep 2019 15:49:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:1066 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:49:39 +0000 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 mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07179A2666F; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:49:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-52.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.52]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619C660629; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:49:37 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT To: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <1685e719-738f-dd4e-c39c-c08e495b202e@arm.com> From: Jeff Law Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:49:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1685e719-738f-dd4e-c39c-c08e495b202e@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-09/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 On 9/17/19 6:02 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > At the Cauldron this weekend the overwhelming view for the move to GIT > soon was finally expressed. [ ... proposal itself ... ] So there's nothing in the proposal I would object to, nor do I object to being slightly flexible. If we need to move the transition a few days into the new year because of developer availability, that seems fine. Similarly if we want to move up the date for a decision to be made that's fine as well so long as the potentially affected parties are notified ASAP what that date is. With the SVN repo going read-only it becomes our fallback plan in case of major unexpected problems. Joseph's recommendation for having the old objects/refs in the new repo makes a lot of sense. So if it works, it's got my support as well. Anyway, just wanted to chime in with my support for the plan and make it clear that as long as we get a conversion that is as good as or better than the mirror is now that I'll be happy :-) jeff