From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Wong Subject: Re: Git SVN Rebranching Issue Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 16:33:19 -0800 Message-ID: <20081105003318.GA5666@hand.yhbt.net> References: <20081103140746.GA5969@mars.cyantechnology.local> <20081104084111.GB14405@untitled> <20081104094224.GC24100@dpotapov.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Matt Kern , git@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Potapov X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 05 01:34:35 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KxWLy-0001w4-Kk for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:34:35 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754405AbYKEAdV (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:33:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754223AbYKEAdV (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:33:21 -0500 Received: from hand.yhbt.net ([66.150.188.102]:36239 "EHLO hand.yhbt.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753441AbYKEAdU (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:33:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hand.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855402DC01B; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 00:33:19 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081104094224.GC24100@dpotapov.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Dmitry Potapov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 12:41:11AM -0800, Eric Wong wrote: > > > > Short answer: you can use grafts to remove parents. > > Using grafts requires some cautious, especially when it is used to make > some commits unreachable, because git gc can remove unreachable commits. > Also, a repository with grafts cannot be cloned. So using grafts looks > like more as workaround rather a real solution. I don't think extra history is harmful at all, so the grafts could even be temporary. AFAIK, the extra history is only an aesthetic issue in visualizers (and I actually like to see it myself). Besides, git svn is just a workaround until the SVN repository is replaced entirely by git :) > > It was actually an intentional design decision on my part preserve > > parents based on branch name. We would eventually otherwise lose > > history of the now-deleted branches, as reflogs can expire. > > Would it not be better to save the old branch using "@SVN-NUMBER" as > suffix? Thus, those do not need the old branch can easily delete it. That would require renaming _existing_ branches to their "@SVN-NUMBER" name; which would break mechanisms for tracking branches based on refname. -- Eric Wong