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

> ---
>  git-svn.perl |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/git-svn.perl b/git-svn.perl
> index ad01e18..17d65cb 100755
> --- a/git-svn.perl
> +++ b/git-svn.perl
> @@ -789,7 +789,7 @@ sub cmd_multi_init {
>  	}
>  	return unless defined $_branches || defined $_tags;
>  	my $ra = $url ? Git::SVN::Ra->new($url) : undef;
> -	complete_url_ls_init($ra, $_branches, '--branches/-b', $_prefix);
> +	complete_url_ls_init($ra, $_branches, '--branches/-b', $_prefix . 'branches/');
>  	complete_url_ls_init($ra, $_tags, '--tags/-t', $_prefix . 'tags/');
>  }

> Jonathan Lim <snowblink@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All branches in the subversion repository would appear at the same
>> level as trunk.  The should now appear with a 'branches/' prefix.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Lim <snowblink@gmail.com>
>
> This is too ugly for the common existing cases.  For the rare case where
> this could lead to a namespace conflict[1], it's possible to work around
> it by editing .git/config.
>
> I would accept a --tags-prefix= and --branches-prefix= patch to make
> this possible w/o having to edit .git/config, but I don't want the
> default prefixes changed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> [1] - "/branches/trunk" vs "/trunk", which I've yet to see evidence of...
>
>> ---
>>  git-svn.perl |    2 +-
>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/git-svn.perl b/git-svn.perl
>> index ad01e18..17d65cb 100755
>> --- a/git-svn.perl
>> +++ b/git-svn.perl
>> @@ -789,7 +789,7 @@ sub cmd_multi_init {
>>       }
>>       return unless defined $_branches || defined $_tags;
>>       my $ra = $url ? Git::SVN::Ra->new($url) : undef;
>> -     complete_url_ls_init($ra, $_branches, '--branches/-b', $_prefix);
>> +     complete_url_ls_init($ra, $_branches, '--branches/-b', $_prefix . 'branches/');
>>       complete_url_ls_init($ra, $_tags, '--tags/-t', $_prefix . 'tags/');
>>  }
>

> 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

> 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.