[oe] Git Migration Status

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 02:21:19PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Tom Rini <trini at kernel.crashing.org> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 01:40:17PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> Rolf Leggewie <no2spam at nospam.arcornews.de> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Hi Richard,
> >> >
> >> > thank you for the update.
> >> >
> >> > Richard Purdie wrote:
> >> >> There is also the issue of commit ID naming. I'm tempted to propose we
> >> >> use commit IDs with a domain such as userid at developers.openembedded.org.
> >> >
> >> > I think something under openembedded.org is a good idea for several
> >> > reasons.  But how about userid at dev.openembedded.org?
> >> 
> >> I disagree. Using real mail address give a real view of who can be
> >> sponsoring work and using OE.  
> >
> > One of the big problems there is what happens when developer X stops
> > doing stuff for company Y?  Or does something on their own? Submission /
> > Signed-off/Ack'ed by, that's fine.  But for commit work I think it's
> > best that it's always the same and a can made functional email.
> 
> For maintainers, I think we could have a MAINTAINERS file as is
> available on Linux sources. This allows for a cannonical place for
> look at. 

I will say this will have just as many problems as keeping forwards for
userid at dev.oe.org up to date, at least.

> When someone stops to work for company Y the credit should still go to
> the sponsoring of the company since this doesn't changes who paid the
> work.

Right, but why is the sponsorship in the commitid, rather than the
commit log, etc?

> Besides that, forcing all commits to be done from a "cannonical mail
> domain" will enforce a difficult to follow policy and turn problematic
> the merging of ordinary trees with fixes.

I don't follow.  You can tell git "for this tree, use me at whatever".
IIRC, these things can even be rewritten when pulled in, if someone does
a drive-by bugfixing.

-- 
Tom Rini