Re: differences between old clone and new Re: git-svn performance

From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Date: Oct 30, 2014, 23:08 UTC
Message-ID: <20141030230831.GA14160@dcvr.yhbt.net>
In-Reply-To: <1414630550.65737.YahooMailBasic@web172303.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

Hin-Tak Leung <htl10@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> That's quite straight-forward, I think  - except for the recent burst (I am essentially
> adapting the git 2.1.0 release shipped by the upcoming fedora 21 scheduled for christmas)
> I tend to update to the latest fedora release about a week or two after release;
> fedora 17 was shipped in May 2012 and only just enter Alpha in 22 Feb 2012.
> and I tracked R at least as frequently as weekly around then;
> So I would be using what ever version of git was shipping with fedora 16 around late
> Feb 2012.
> 
> On fedora's build farm, git-1.7.7.5 was bult in dec 2011 and git-1.7.7.6 was built
> on 2012-01-19 . Depending on how soon
> 1.7.7.6 filtered down to update, and when I update my git and also tracked R,
> (all three of these events probably happened around 22 Feb), I could be
> using either 1.7.7.5 or 1.7.7.6. I still have the system software update log around
> (the repo was cloned on a now-dead system, then moved over when it died),
> and presumably I can get git log to show me the fetch date (?), I might
> be able to tell whether it is 17.7.5 or 1.7.7.6 if you really want to know.

I tried a full clone on 1.7.7.6 (no git-svn difference from 1.7.7.5). Even with that old git, I was able to reproduce the same merge behavior as current (Junio's) master as well as our recent patches.

So I believe r58454, r46925, and r46906 in the R repo are all handled correctly and no mergeinfo-handling regressions are introduced in the latest round of git-svn changes. Thanks.