Re: [PATCH] git svn clone -s was not prefixing 'branches/'

["Björn Steinbrink" <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>]

On 2009.01.17 11:39:28 +0000, Jon Lim wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Maybe this patch doesn't fix the problem I was having. I will attempt
> to describe it better here.
> 
> I understand that a standard subversion setup is as follows:
> trunk
> branches
> tags
> 
> With the -s option, svn clone should expect this.
> 
> Using the example subversion repository:
> trunk
> branches/RB_1.0
> branches/RB_2.0
> tags/REL_1.0
> tags/REL_2.0
> 
> Currently, using the -s option you get:
> trunk
> RB_1.0
> RB_2.0
> tags/REL_1.0
> tags/REL_2.0
> 
> I think it makes sense to have:
> trunk
> branches/RB_1.0
> branches/RB_2.0
> tags/REL_1.0
> tags/REL_2.0

Why? "trunk" is just a branch like any other branch, too. It's basically
just a svn convention that it's not in branches/ but in its own
"toplevel" directory. Once imported into git, it's just an ordinary
remote tracking branch. It's already pretty well distiguishable from all
the other branches due to its name.

What _does_ make sense is to have a common prefix for all the stuff you
got from svn, using for example --prefix=svn/. That way you get:
svn/trunk
svn/RB_1.0
svn/RB_2.0
svn/tags/REL_1.0
svn/tags/REL_2.0

The important part is that those names aren't ambiguous if you have
local branch heads called, for example:
trunk
RB_1.0
RB_2.0

as the svn/ prefix is part of the shortname for the remote tracking
branches. So "trunk" is the branch head and "svn/trunk" is the remote
tracking branch.

Btw Eric, is there any reason why there's no prefix used by default?
Using the name for the svn-remote as the prefix would make a lot of
sense to me.

Björn