On Sun, 8 May 2016 at 16:29 Senthil Kumaran <sent...@uthcode.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Émanuel Barry <vgr...@live.ca> wrote: > >> I understand that there's >> already a semi-official mirror of the cpython repo on GitHub, and I've >> been >> wondering why it isn't enough for our needs. >> > > It is suitable for our needs. Our last discussion was about how do we > ascertain that > cpython git repo has the same history as the hg repo, so that after > migrate we do not loose any information from the old system. > Right, we *hope* the mirror is good enough, but when Eli created it he didn't worry too much about accuracy so we need to evaluate if it's good enough to simply switch to or if it needs to be thrown out. Hence, the discussion about how to ascertain if the mirror is acceptable. > > This could be done using: > > * check the number of commits in both repos for each branch > * checking the hash of the source files in two repos. > * (And do we go about validating each piece of commit log graph too)? > > If you have any suggestions, since you are using the cpython git mirror, > please feel free to share your thoughts. > We will also want a mapping of hg commits to git commits for https://hg.python.org/lookup which might help with the validation of the mirror. > > Welcome to the party! > +1!
_______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
