From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Jarosch Subject: Re: help needed: Splitting a git repository after subversion migration Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:34:20 +0100 Organization: Intra2net AG Message-ID: <200812081834.26688.thomas.jarosch@intra2net.com> References: <493C0AAD.1040208@intra2net.com> <493D2174.80500@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20081208142447.GA20186@atjola.homenet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Michael J Gruber , git@vger.kernel.org To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Bj=F6rn_Steinbrink?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 08 18:36:12 2008 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 1L9k1j-0007JY-H1 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:36:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751116AbYLHReb (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:34:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751135AbYLHRea (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:34:30 -0500 Received: from re01.intra2net.com ([82.165.28.202]:34023 "EHLO re01.intra2net.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751076AbYLHRea (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:34:30 -0500 Received: from intranator.m.i2n (unknown [172.16.1.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by re01.intra2net.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6069051C0; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:34:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (intranator.m.i2n [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009C32AC4B; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:34:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from storm.localnet (storm.m.i2n [172.16.1.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by intranator.m.i2n (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033B22AC4A; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:34:27 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: KMail/1.10.3 (Linux/2.6.27.5-41.fc9.i686; KDE/4.1.3; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20081208142447.GA20186@atjola.homenet> Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by Intranator (www.intranator.com) with AMaViS and F-Secure AntiVirus (fsavdb 2008-12-08_12) X-Spam-Status: hits=-2.9 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8,BAYES_05=-1.11] X-Spam-Level: 971 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Monday, 8. December 2008 15:24:47 you wrote: > If it's about huge objects, and not just lots of small objects, you can > use this: Thanks, those two commands have been really helpful. I've found some objects that shouldn't be there and now I have two more questions: 1. When I run "git rev-list --all --objects", I can see file names that look like "SVN-branchname/directory/filename". Is it normal that "git svn" creates a directory with the name of the branch and puts files below it? "git rev-list --all --objects |grep 5-0-3-hotfix": 5fe3265b6941c2fa74c12da799ea23e2801efa8a 5-0-3-hotfix/source ... The branch in question existed for a limited time in branches/xyz on the SVN tree and was deleted later on. Guessing the version number from the filename, it looks like a copy of the files when I started the branch as it's an old version number before I committed changes to it. (f.e. upgraded libpng). When I just grep for "libpng" on the whole index, I see all the various updates I made over the years. 2. Something goes wrong after the filter branch: Output from the full 11GB tree: git rev-list --all --objects |grep 5-0-3-hotfix |grep xyz -> No match Output from the filtered tree: git rev-list --all --objects |grep 5-0-3-hotfix |grep xyz 3a13f87bc116aee96e031441eaafc416652ba4bd 5-0-3-hotfix/update_pkg/xyz ebebb84ccff26c949fb1f803c60034074e6603fe 5-0-3-hotfix/update_pkg/xyz 5529ef51de887cc905fe460e4c4f6cd34b93b5a6 5-0-3-hotfix/update_pkg/xyz c264a9d5db30ebb131c96c4f93192bfe9a5c0a7b 5-0-3-hotfix/update_pkg/xyz I have no idea how those objects suddenly appeared there. It feels like something was stitched together wrongly. When I converted the SVN tag to a git tag, I tagged the branches with a "branch-" prefix. Might that be a problem, is "branch-" reserved? Cheers, Thomas