This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: CVS or git now?
- From: Peter Rosin <peda at lysator dot liu dot se>
- To: Ralf Corsepius <ralf dot corsepius at gmail dot com>, Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>, "newlib at sourceware dot org" <newlib at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:00:15 +0100
- Subject: Re: CVS or git now?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52812F85 dot 2030205 at oarcorp dot com> <5282300E dot 3040101 at lysator dot liu dot se> <52824CDC dot 8030901 at gmail dot com>
On 2013-11-12 16:44, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 02:41 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2013-11-11 20:27, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> With all the recent conversion to git of the old src/
>>> tree, I am curious where newlib stands.
>> I had a brief browse of https://sourceware.org/git/?p=newlib.git
>> and that "mirror" looks poor. It has not retained authorship of
>> the commits, as the committer is always listed as author. Here
>> is one recent example:
> That's they way things always have been in all of the GCC, binutils,
> gdb etc. repositories, with CVS and SVN.
Can't really say I agree. Granted, CVS has no built-in method to
track the author and it only automatically tracks the committer (do
not know about SVN). But authors have been tracked in the ChangeLog
file and a good conversion utility will scrape that info from the
ChangeLog file. If no ChangeLog entry has been made for a specific
commit, I agree that the best thing one can do is to list the
committer as author, but for the majority of changes better info is