From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josef Wolf Subject: Re: git-svn and repository hierarchy? Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:57:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20090306175724.GB14554@raven.wolf.lan> References: <20090303185108.GA11278@raven.wolf.lan> <20090303223600.GB11278@raven.wolf.lan> <20090304192752.GC11278@raven.wolf.lan> <20090305180529.GD11278@raven.wolf.lan> <20090306161026.GA14554@raven.wolf.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 06 19:01:51 2009 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 1LfeMn-0002Av-2Q for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:01:49 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751616AbZCFSAQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:00:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751046AbZCFSAP (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:00:15 -0500 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:44878 "EHLO mail.inka.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750996AbZCFSAO (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:00:14 -0500 Received: from raven.inka.de (uucp@[127.0.0.1]) by mail.inka.de with uucp (rmailwrap 0.5) id 1LfeLD-0001ic-V0; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:00:11 +0100 Received: by raven.inka.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 65C3B2C90B; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:57:24 +0100 (CET) Mail-Followup-To: Josef Wolf , git@vger.kernel.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Peter Harris wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Josef Wolf wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 02:48:14PM -0500, Peter Harris wrote: > >> > >> True, but in my experience it happens considerably less often with > >> git. I find and fix most of my typos when reviewing my change-set > >> before doing a "git push" or "git svn dcommit". > > > > So you are rewriting yourself but not accept rewrites by svn ;-) > > No, I am not rewriting myself *after I publish*. I see the smiley, but > I think you missed the point. > > "git push" or "svn ci" is the end of the rewrites. I see. Thanks for the clarification! > >> Indeed. Or even not-so-random names, such as cloneX/topic-name if you > >> prefer. > > > > That would have the risk of multiple clones pushing to the same branch. > > Only if cloneX pushes to cloneY/topic-name. Does each clone not have a > unique name? I'd rather not rely on the clones having unique names. > > Does that look sane? > > No. But it doesn't look any more insane than any other workflow > involving Subversion that I can think of. :-) OK, I parse that as "there's not much room for improvement" :-) Thanks for your great help! I have learned a lot in this thread!