CVS or git now?

Cary R.
Tue Nov 12 17:49:00 GMT 2013

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 5:42 AM, 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
> 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:

If the authorship is not being maintained than git is not being
used correctly.

If the patch is being applied the normal git way then git am will
preserve the authorship. The problem with this method is dealing
with conflicts can get complicated.

If the patch is being applied using patch and then being committed
once it has been reviewed and any conflicts dealt with then the
--author flag can be used with git commit to preserve the original
authorship information.

git pulls from remote branches are another way to get patches into
the master repository, but that's more advanced.

I'm guessing the authorship problem mentioned above is because
more traditional methods (patch, etc.) are being used to apply
and review the patches and the original author information is
not being passed to git commit. This is easy to forget when you
are applying a bunch of patches since you need to remember an
extra step to preserve the original author information.


More information about the Newlib mailing list