On 11/12/2019 15:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 15:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> I wouldn't bother with that. There are known defects in the version of >> reposurgeon that I used to produce that which have since been fixed. It >> was *never* the point of that upload to ask for correctness checks on >> the conversion (I said so at the time). Instead it was intended to >> demonstrate the improvements to the commit summaries that I think we can >> make. > > My concern is that there is no conversion done using reposurgeon that > *can* be used to do correctness checks. >
I have concerns too, but I'm in contact with the reposurgeon guys and progress *is* being made. R.
