[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Moving to git

From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: Moving to git
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:25:34 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)


On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

> Olaf asked whether we could fix the author and committer information
> for the changesets.  This can't be done reliably in an automated way
> and surely no one wants to inspect 10,000+ changesets manually.  As I
> consider a correct-believed but nevertheless incorrect automatic
> conversion worse than the current one where you exactly know that the
> information is not accurate, I decided to leave this alone as is.

I don't agree. What's the use of this damn pedantic GNU-style changelog
format, if we can't even reliably extract author information from it?!

I also do not agree that having everything wrong is better than having a
few errors, perhaps, or maybe not.

(And it's not even more consistent, as any new commits will have it

Also note that not only the original Author information is missing, but
also the Committer is "tschwinge" for all commits -- I guess you did
some careless rebasing or something like that... So the result is that
the Committer is bogus, the Author contains the actual comitter, and the
real author is only mentioned in the Changelog. That's extremely ugly
and confusing IMHO.

> Also, there was the idea of aggregating all the individual one-file,
> [...], then ChangeLog commits into aggregates, but this also can't be
> done reliably in an automated fashion without a lot of manual
> corrections (as could be seen in the glibc CVS to Git conversion), so
> I also left that alone.

I feared that much... It's a pity, but I guess there is nothing we can
do about it :-(


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]