On 5/17/19 4:59 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On May 17, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
On 5/17/19 1:06 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
That repository
represents what I consider the collaboratively built consensus on such
things as the desired author map (including handling of the ambiguous
author name), which directories represent branches and tags, and what tags
should be kept or removed - but building up such a consensus and keeping
About the map. I agree with Richard that we should do best approach and not
to fully reconstruct history of people who has switched email address multi
times. I cloned git://thyrsus.com/repositories/gcc-conversion.git and made
a clean up:
- for logins with duplicite emails I chose the latest one used on gcc-patches
mailing list
- comments were removed
- a few entries contained timezone and I stripped that
Final version of the map can be seen here:
https://github.com/marxin/gcc-git-conversion/blob/cleanup/gcc.map
@Maxim: would it be possible to update your script so that it will use:
--authors-file=gcc.map ?
Should not be a problem. I'll try that.
Is it desired for the transition to use the author map? Do we want it?
IIUC, the downside is that converted repo will not match current git mirror
unless we do log re-writing, which would add extra info on the side.
Just to be clear: I don't insist on the authors map and I see @Segher is
strongly against (@Richard probably as well).
I'm just saying that we have a pretty compete authors map and we can liberally
decide whether to use it or not
(with all pros and cons).
Martin
--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
www.linaro.org
