RE: git-svn set-tree bug

["Joakim Tjernlund" <joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Wong [mailto:normalperson@yhbt.net] 
> Sent: den 10 juni 2007 23:33
> To: Joakim Tjernlund
> Cc: git
> Subject: Re: git-svn set-tree bug
> 
> Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 18:47 -0700, Eric Wong wrote:
> > > Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
> > > > trying to do git-svn set-tree remotes/trunk..svn
> > > > in my new git-svn repo I get:
> > > > config --get svn-remote.svn.fetch 
> :refs/remotes/git-svn$: command returned error: 1
> > > 
> > > You need to specify "-i trunk" in the command-line
> > > 
> > > git-svn set-tree -i trunk remotes/trunk..svn
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > I have found a bug or two. Run this script and
> > see what happens ant the end.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > git pull . merge
> 
> This is a non-fast-forward merge, giving you non-linear history.  git
> understands non-linear history without problems, but svn does not.
> 
> > git svn dcommit  # this fails 
> 
> If you have non-linear history, don't use dcommit, use 
> set-tree.  Linear
> history is cleaner and easier to manage, which is why I recommend
> format-patch/am/dcommit/rebase, and avoid using pull/merge unless it's
> fast-forward.

I see, I figured git-svn could work around that.
So I should do a git svn set-tree -i trunk remotes/trunk..svn
and then git svn rebase? That makes the git history hard to
follow.
hmm, is it wise to mix set-tree and dcommit in one repo?
Is there a way to tell set-tree to commit the whole "merge" branch
as one svn commit?
If I merge the latest kernel into my tree there will
be a lot of commits that I don't want in svn.

 Jocke


   Jocke