| 1 |
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Andreas K. Huettel |
| 2 |
<dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Ah btw how's that git migration coming along? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Even though we're drifting here an update is probably due. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
At this point I'd say we have pretty high confidence that we can |
| 10 |
accurately migrate the tree. The issues that remain shouldn't hold us |
| 11 |
back from just moving forward (they're issues with cvs keywords that |
| 12 |
are already issues in cvs). The bigger issues were all fixed (like |
| 13 |
mangling unicode). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Infra changes aren't started, and those are probably rate-limiting at |
| 16 |
this point, especially since it is hard for anybody not in infra to |
| 17 |
contribute to this. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
We also need to write up docs, and once an actual workflow is |
| 20 |
announced I suspect we'll start getting objections. The likely |
| 21 |
conflict I see is between those who want all commits in the log to be |
| 22 |
signed (which means no rebasing), and those who don't want any merge |
| 23 |
commits in the log (which means always rebasing unless you are REALLY |
| 24 |
fast). Anybody who wants to chip in on this one feel free to do so - |
| 25 |
I would like to but haven't gotten around to it yet. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives