On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 05:47:08PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 02/12/2019 17:25, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > 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. > > Of course. But that's a decision that can be made quite late, because > we know we *can* turn them off if we want to.
Do we postpone the transition another few months because we have to check all commits for mistakes the conversion tool made because it tried to be "smart"? Or will we rush in these changes, unnecessary errors and all, because people have invested time in doing this? It is not a decision that can be made late. It is a *design decision*. Segher
