From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Wong Subject: Re: git-svn and a nested branches folder Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 03:09:19 -0700 Message-ID: <20070905100919.GA11074@soma> References: <46DD6EEA.9010304@gmail.com> <20070905001513.GA9362@soma> <46DE7D37.9040905@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Russ Brown X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 05 12:09:27 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ISrp7-00081O-S0 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:09:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755593AbXIEKJV (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2007 06:09:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755267AbXIEKJV (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2007 06:09:21 -0400 Received: from hand.yhbt.net ([66.150.188.102]:56203 "EHLO hand.yhbt.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753502AbXIEKJU (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2007 06:09:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hand.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2437F4110; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 03:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46DE7D37.9040905@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Russ Brown wrote: > Eric Wong wrote: > > Russ Brown wrote: > >> Basically, we have a structure like this: > >> > >> | > >> +-trunk > >> +-tags > >> +-branches > >> + category-a > >> + branch-a > >> + branch-b > >> + category-b > >> + branch-c > >> + branch-d > >> The only other problem is in branch naming, which could clash if you > >> only use the outer-most directory name, so I'd suggest something that > >> involves concatenating the folders in the path relative to 'branches' to > >> keep them unique (if git can handle slashes in branch names then all the > >> better). > > > > As Peter suggested, disable globbing for branches and use explicit > > fetch refspecs for now... > > > > I've actually knocked up a rough script which generates a list of > refspec lines for you given a repo URL, trunk reference and branches > directory. It uses svn log -v --xml and pipes it through a couple of > XSLT templates, and basically looks for all copies that copy from trunk > (recursively: so it includes branches of branches too). I can post it to > the list if you'd find it useful or interesting. > > It's generating output that looks sensible to me, but the results aren't > quite what I'd expected. I'll paste a sample in here in case there's > anything obvious someone might spot that I've missed > > # This line was generated by git-svn init, and I kept it > fetch = all/trunk:refs/remotes/trunk > > # These lines generated by my tool, dirnames replaced for security reasons: > > fetch = branches/folder/projecta:refs/remotes/svn/folder/projecta > fetch = branches/folder/projectb:refs/remotes/svn/folder/projectb > fetch = branches/folder/projectc:refs/remotes/svn/folder/projectc > fetch = branches/folder/projectd:refs/remotes/svn/folder/projectd > fetch = branches/folder/projecte:refs/remotes/svn/folder/projecte > fetch = branches/folder/projectf:refs/remotes/svn/folder/projectf > fetch = branches/folder/projectg:refs/remotes/svn/folder/projectg > > git branch -a doesn't list any of those branches after fetch completes. > Looking back at the output from fetch, all revisions applied were to trunk. > > Anything wrong with those fetch lines? >>From your tree diagram, it seemed that trunk/ and branches/ were at the same depth in your SVN repository. However, in your generated fetch lines they all started with "branches/" in front, yet your trunk fetch line had "all/" in front of trunk, so maybe prefixing the generated ones with "all/" helps? > Thanks for your time. No problem. -- Eric Wong