On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:18:59PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 02/12/2019 15:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > 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.
But we need to be *sure* this is done correctly. The only safe thing to do is to turn off all such options, if we cannot trust them. > >> - 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. Yes, "the normal commit flows" :-) > We could extend the script to rewrite all [tag] attributions in tag: > form, but I'm not really sure it's worth it. Sure; I'm just saying rewriting old commit messages in such a style that they keep standing out from new ones is a bit of a weird choice. > >> 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. > 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... Thanks for the effort, regardless of the outcome! Segher
