Re: git export to svn

> On 2008.10.25 13:29:50 -0700, Warren Harris wrote:
>> I tried a fetch, but still no luck:
>>
>> $ git svn fetch
>> W: Ignoring error from SVN, path probably does not exist: (175002):  
>> RA
>> layer request failed: REPORT of '/svn/!svn/bc/100': Could not read  
>> chunk
>> size: Secure connection truncated (https://svn)
>> W: Do not be alarmed at the above message git-svn is just searching
>> aggressively for old history.
>> This may take a while on large repositories
>> r58084 = c01dadf89b552077da132273485e7569d8694518 (trunk)
>> 	A	...
>> r58088 = 7916f3a02ad6c759985bd9fb886423c373a72125 (trunk)
>>
>> $ git svn rebase
>> Unable to determine upstream SVN information from working tree  
>> history
>
> Means that your current branch is not based on what git-svn has  
> fetched,
> which is expected when you use "svn init" + "svn fetch" after you
> already started working.
>
> What's the actual relationship between your local history and the
> history you fetched from svn?

>
>
> If your local stuff started from revision X, which you manually  
> imported
> from svn, you can just rebase it:
>
> git rebase --onto <svn-revision-X> <your-revision-X>

>
>
>
> If you have a bunch of merges in your local history, you might want to
> merge your stuff into the svn-based branch instead. When you dcommit,
> the svn repo will only see one big "do it all" commit though.
>
> For that, you would create a graft, so that your first "real" local
> commit gets the svn revision X commit as its parent. That is, from:
>
> S---S---SX---S---S---S (svn)
>
> LX--------L---L---L---L (local)
>
> You want to go to:
>
> S---S---SX---S---S---S (svn)
>         \
> LX        L---L---L---L (local)
>
>
> Where 'S' means that the commit came from SVN, and L means that it  
> is a
> "local" commit. SX and LX are the commits that have the same tree
> attached (same directories/files), but have a different hash due to  
> how
> they were created. The graft overrides the parent-child relation for  
> the
> first "L" commit, so that it actually appears as being branched off  
> of SX.
>
> And then, you'd merge local into svn, so you get:
>
> S---S---SX---S---S---S--M (svn)
>         \             /
> LX        L---L---L---L (local)
>
>
>
> If possible, go with the rebase though. That at least gives a somewhat
> reasonable history in the svn repo as well. Also note that when you go
> with the merge way, make sure that the svn branch is totally uptodate
> before you merge and that the merge commit is the only one to be
> dcommitted. Otherwise, funny stuff might happen, and rebase might kick
> in anyway, I don't exactly remember what git-svn does, but it wasn't
> pleasant :-)