git-svn set-tree

git-svn set-tree

[Tjernlund]

I have noticed that if I do a git-svn set-tree, remotes/git-svn retains the parent
from the branch where set-tree was performed.

If a coworker wants recreate my tree by using git-svn init && git-svn fetch
he looses the parent I have in my tree.

I wonder if not git-svn set-tree can record the parent information in the
svn repos log, so that git-svn init/fetch can recreate the parent relationship?

 Jocke

Re: git-svn set-tree

[Eric Wong]

Tjernlund <tjernlund@tjernlund.se> wrote:
> I have noticed that if I do a git-svn set-tree, remotes/git-svn
> retains the parent from the branch where set-tree was performed.
> 
> If a coworker wants recreate my tree by using git-svn init && git-svn
> fetch he looses the parent I have in my tree.
> 
> I wonder if not git-svn set-tree can record the parent information in
> the svn repos log, so that git-svn init/fetch can recreate the parent
> relationship?

We could at yet another non-standardized property into SVN to handle
merges.  Currently there are at least two properties used in the SVN/SVK
world to represent merges (Sam Vilain can give you the fun details of
each one!).

I'm afraid adding a third incompatible yet similair property for git-svn
would just confuse people.

I've become very much against crazy stuff like set-tree which ends up
creating a M:N history mapping between git and svn.  1:1 is the simplest
and easiest.  I'm more than willing to sacrifice multi-parent histories
in git for easier compatibility with other systems.

Heck, linear history is just easier to deal with and probably preferable
in most/many cases.  I'm sure that the rising popularity of git-rebase,
quilt, stgit, guilt, mq and other like tools is a testament to that.

-- 
Eric Wong

RE: git-svn set-tree

[Joakim Tjernlund]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Wong [mailto:normalperson@yhbt.net] 
> Sent: den 9 juli 2007 07:46
> To: Tjernlund
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: git-svn set-tree
> 
> Tjernlund <tjernlund@tjernlund.se> wrote:
> > I have noticed that if I do a git-svn set-tree, remotes/git-svn
> > retains the parent from the branch where set-tree was performed.
> > 
> > If a coworker wants recreate my tree by using git-svn init 
> && git-svn
> > fetch he looses the parent I have in my tree.
> > 
> > I wonder if not git-svn set-tree can record the parent 
> information in
> > the svn repos log, so that git-svn init/fetch can recreate 
> the parent
> > relationship?
> 
> We could at yet another non-standardized property into SVN to handle
> merges.  Currently there are at least two properties used in 
> the SVN/SVK
> world to represent merges (Sam Vilain can give you the fun details of
> each one!).

I have read his page, quite informative.

> 
> I'm afraid adding a third incompatible yet similair property 
> for git-svn
> would just confuse people. 
> 
> I've become very much against crazy stuff like set-tree which ends up
> creating a M:N history mapping between git and svn.  1:1 is 
> the simplest
> and easiest.  I'm more than willing to sacrifice multi-parent 
> histories
> in git for easier compatibility with other systems.

set-tree is needed for starting a SVN tree from a git tree, I don't
know of any other way to do that. I got both linux and u-boot
git trees in which I do custom mods. I then use git-svn 
to maintain a svn tree which I start with set-tree to commit
the initial tree, then I dcommit my local mods. 

Maybe maybe an option to git-svn init/clone where you can specify the git
parent for a certain svn revision? 

> 
> Heck, linear history is just easier to deal with and probably 
> preferable
> in most/many cases.  I'm sure that the rising popularity of 
> git-rebase,
> quilt, stgit, guilt, mq and other like tools is a testament to that.
>

git rebase is a bit annoying as you loose the old tree if you don't take precations.
Also, I am not sure what will be committed to SVN if I rebase my local mods on top
of linus latest.

 Jocke
 
> -- 
> Eric Wong
>