On 02/12/2019 18:00, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > 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*. > >
It's a one-line edit to the lift script. So it's a conversion *choice*. R.
