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

> 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.