On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 01:43:48PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 11:29 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > > > Should we go with the gcc-reparent.git repo now? > > > > I think we should go with the reposurgeon conversion, with all Richard's > > improvements to commit messages. gcc-reparent.git has issues of its own; > > at least, checking the list of branches shows some branches are missing.
You need to provide proof of that. > > So both conversions can still be considered works in progress. > > I thought we would pick the best available conversion today. Yes. > If we keep tweaking the conversions till they are "perfect" we probably > never reach that point. > > > However, we should also note that stage 3 is intended to last two months, > > ending with the move to git > > <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00143.html> > > <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-11/msg00117.html>, and given that it > > didn't start at the start of November as anticipated in the originally > > proposed timetable, that implies corresponding updates to all the dates. I do not agree. > > By now, enough people are away until the new year that now isn't a good > > time for deciding things anyway. > > The idea was to do it while most people were away to have the least > impact. The timeline https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GitConversion does say we > can slip for logistical reasons the read-only date (2019/12/31) by a > few days. Yes. > Do people really want to keep tweaking the conversions and postpone the > git switchover? No. Segher