On 02/12/2019 15:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 10:54:17AM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> - author attributions are sometimes incorrect - reported > > This would disqualify that "conversion", for me at least. Keeping all > warts we had in SVN is better than adding new lies, lies about important > matters even. Indeed, but it's easy to turn off the option that tries to do this, if it can't be made to work correctly. We'd then be back with the existing 'author == committer' situation.
> >> - certain key words in otherwise not very useful summary lines are >> also spotted and used to add [revert] or [backport] annotations to >> the summary. > > You won't see tags like that from anyone who uses the normal git commit > flows: the piece of the mail subject between [] is deleted. Well, true if you use "git am" without the -k or -b options; false otherwise. We have plenty of existing patches in the repo that have tags like this, though it doesn't appear to be the 'git way' I grant you. We could extend the script to rewrite all [tag] attributions in tag: form, but I'm not really sure it's worth it. > >> No changes are made to the main commit log, if we add a new summary >> line, the entire original text is kept. > > That is good (an important requirement even). > Yes, I even steer clear of trimming blank lines at the head or tail of the message, but it's possible that reposurgeon might do that itself later. > > Segher > The real question at this point is whether or not these commit summaries are better than the existing ones. Personally, I think they are (or I wouldn't have spent the time working on this), but I'm not the only person with an interest here... R
