Git development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Multiple branches and git-svn
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:35:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <86wsvpf4k7.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20070821115611.GA21410@mimvista.com

David Watson <dwatson@mimvista.com> writes:

> Yes, that's quite true. It took me quite a while to figure that out
> when I first started using git-svn, and its non-sensicalness nearly
> put me off using git entirely. My workflow at this point is to use
> git-cherry-pick -e to pull in any changes from other branches, then
> delete the git-svn-id line.
>
> Essentially, merging using git-svn is almost entirely broken, since
> an inconsistent tool is worthless - you spend more time figuring out
> if it's going to break, and working around the breakage, than you
> save using it.

Full agreement.

> Now, I'm not sure this is 100% the fault of git-svn. Perhaps keeping
> its metadata about which SVN branch it's connected to isn't the best
> thing, but git-merge is doing exactly what you ask for.  Perhaps we
> need a merge command in git-svn that does the right thing?

Git svn needs to recognize a merge for what it is, and has to ignore
the branch which has been merged, looking further for git-svn-id lines
or whatever.  Cherrypicking is harder to contain.  Basically, I think
it is a mistake to use something as fragile as the git-svn-id line in
the log for determining the branch to use for committing.  Instead, a
fixed association of git branches with git-svn should be established.
Even if one needs to write this manually into some configuration file.
Before git-svn does not have reliable information, it should refuse to
commit.  One could specify this on the command line, too: that is a
small price to pay for being sure that one commits where one wants to.

> Although what that right thing would be, I'm not quite sure.  Either
> way, there needs to be a BIG GIGANTIC WARNING in the git-svn manual
> that if you actually use git for what it claims to be great at
> (i.e., merging) you may be in for a world of pain, with your
> coworkers and boss coming at you with pitchforks and
> torches. Especially because there are so many git users who need to
> interoperate with SVN.

Yes.

-- 
David Kastrup

  reply	other threads:[~2007-08-21 12:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-08-15 10:17 Multiple branches and git-svn David Kastrup
2007-08-21 10:06 ` Benoit SIGOURE
2007-08-21 11:04   ` David Kastrup
2007-08-21 11:56     ` David Watson
2007-08-21 12:35       ` David Kastrup [this message]
2007-08-21 12:53         ` David Kastrup
2007-08-21 15:12       ` Pierre Habouzit
2007-08-21 17:51         ` Benoit SIGOURE
2007-08-21 17:55       ` Benoit SIGOURE

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=86wsvpf4k7.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz \
    --to=dak@gnu.org \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox