CVS or git now?

[Joel Sherrill]

On 11/12/2013 11:49 AM, Cary R. wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 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:
> 
> 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.

These authorship issues are where the cvs->git conversion did
not use the ChangeLog information to generate a proper author
tag. The commits in question are not from git. They are from
CVS and viewed via git.

> Cary
> 



-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985