threads / discuss / 9532

Multiple branches and git-svn

Subject: Multiple branches and git-svn

## tl;dr

9 messages between Aug 15, 2007 and Aug 21, 2007.

replies: 8people: 4as markdown or json

David Kastrup· Aug 15, 2007, 10:17 UTC · lore

After having had several embarrassing occurences with git-svn dcommit, I think it would not be amiss to mention in the docs just how git-svn happens to figure out which Subversion remote it is associated with.

One surprising relevation was that this association changed after a git-rebase.

It may be a general git thing, or it may be git-svn specific, but it was not exactly what I expected. And the docs were not really that helpful.

In particular, man git-svn is completely silent about this.

-- 
David Kastrup

Benoit SIGOURE· Aug 21, 2007, 10:06 UTC · re: David Kastrup · lore

Re: Multiple branches and git-svn

On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:17 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

>
> After having had several embarrassing occurences with git-svn dcommit,
> I think it would not be amiss to mention in the docs just how git-svn
> happens to figure out which Subversion remote it is associated with.
>
> One surprising relevation was that this association changed after a
> git-rebase.
>
> It may be a general git thing, or it may be git-svn specific, but it
> was not exactly what I expected.  And the docs were not really that
> helpful.
>
> In particular, man git-svn is completely silent about this.
>

What I do usually is that I look in git log until I see a git-svn-id line: git-svn-id: https://svn.foo.com/svn/project/branches/bar@<rev-SVN> <Repository UUID> AFAIK git-svn dcommit will commit in the branch specified in the last git-svn-id. I also dcommitted in the wrong branch after a rebase because I imported commits from another branch and the topmost commit in git-log was "pointing to" a different branch.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,

-- 
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory

David Kastrup· Aug 21, 2007, 11:04 UTC · re: Benoit SIGOURE · lore

Re: Multiple branches and git-svn

Benoit SIGOURE <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:

Show 24 quoted lines

> On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:17 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>
>> After having had several embarrassing occurences with git-svn dcommit,
>> I think it would not be amiss to mention in the docs just how git-svn
>> happens to figure out which Subversion remote it is associated with.
>>
>> One surprising relevation was that this association changed after a
>> git-rebase.
>>
>> It may be a general git thing, or it may be git-svn specific, but it
>> was not exactly what I expected.  And the docs were not really that
>> helpful.
>>
>> In particular, man git-svn is completely silent about this.
>
> What I do usually is that I look in git log until I see a git-svn-id
> line:
> git-svn-id: https://svn.foo.com/svn/project/branches/bar@<rev-SVN>
> <Repository UUID>
> AFAIK git-svn dcommit will commit in the branch specified in the last
> git-svn-id.  I also dcommitted in the wrong branch after a rebase
> because I imported commits from another branch and the topmost commit
> in git-log was "pointing to" a different branch.

Sounds insane: apparently one result is that when you do a merge and dcommit, the commit will go to the branch you merged.

The whole point of merging is to stay on one's current branch.

-- 
David Kastrup

David Watson· Aug 21, 2007, 11:56 UTC · re: David Kastrup · lore

Re: Multiple branches and git-svn

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.

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? 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.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:04:28PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:

Show 39 quoted lines

> Benoit SIGOURE <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> 
> > On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:17 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> After having had several embarrassing occurences with git-svn dcommit,
> >> I think it would not be amiss to mention in the docs just how git-svn
> >> happens to figure out which Subversion remote it is associated with.
> >>
> >> One surprising relevation was that this association changed after a
> >> git-rebase.
> >>
> >> It may be a general git thing, or it may be git-svn specific, but it
> >> was not exactly what I expected.  And the docs were not really that
> >> helpful.
> >>
> >> In particular, man git-svn is completely silent about this.
> >
> > What I do usually is that I look in git log until I see a git-svn-id
> > line:
> > git-svn-id: https://svn.foo.com/svn/project/branches/bar@<rev-SVN>
> > <Repository UUID>
> > AFAIK git-svn dcommit will commit in the branch specified in the last
> > git-svn-id.  I also dcommitted in the wrong branch after a rebase
> > because I imported commits from another branch and the topmost commit
> > in git-log was "pointing to" a different branch.
> 
> Sounds insane: apparently one result is that when you do a merge and
> dcommit, the commit will go to the branch you merged.
> 
> The whole point of merging is to stay on one's current branch.
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Dave Watson

David Kastrup· Aug 21, 2007, 12:35 UTC · re: David Watson · lore

Re: Multiple branches and git-svn

David Watson <dwatson@mimvista.com> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> 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.

Show 7 quoted lines

> 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

David Kastrup· Aug 21, 2007, 12:53 UTC · re: David Kastrup · lore

Re: Multiple branches and git-svn

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

Show 30 quoted lines

> 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.

PostScriptum: that is probably all nonsense.  git-svn fetch knows what
to fetch, and probably also what to merge (this should be quite
similar to git pull's behavior), and git-svn rebase/dcommit should not
do anything different.

-- 
David Kastrup

Pierre Habouzit· Aug 21, 2007, 15:12 UTC · re: David Watson · lore

Re: Multiple branches and git-svn

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 11:56:11AM +0000, David Watson wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> 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? 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.

  IMHO here is what git-svn should do. It should use the not-so-new
remotes mechanism, and have all the svn remotes branches under a remote
namespace, clean, simple, and also knowing which "upstream" svn "thing"
it's following.

  Then, when you just git checkout --track -b <branch> <svn-remote/foo>

  hack hack hack
  git commit
  hack hack hack
  git commit
  git merge <svn-remote/another-branch>
  hack hack hack
  git commit

  and then you just want to:

  git svn dcommit.

  Using the fact that <branch> tracks <svn-remote/foo> and that
<svn-remote/foo> is in fact the plain mirror of upstream's branch foo,
it should be able to know where to actually commit and wrt what it has
to make history clean.

  IMHO a git-$scm gateway just has to feed "remotes" branches, and
provide some plumbing commands (like dcommit) to be able to feed some
changes to the other $scm, with a workflow like this one:

  1. pull $scm into a shadow git repository
  2. import/merge $scm changes into your local branch
  3. make changes / merges whatever
  4. push $scm..<yourbranch> into $scm
  5. goto 1, so that you can "win" your changes from 4. back in the $scm
     local shadow repository.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Benoit SIGOURE· Aug 21, 2007, 17:51 UTC · re: Pierre Habouzit · lore

Re: Multiple branches and git-svn

On Aug 21, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 11:56:11AM +0000, David Watson wrote:
>> 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? 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.
>
>   IMHO here is what git-svn should do. It should use the not-so-new
> remotes mechanism, and have all the svn remotes branches under a  
> remote
> namespace, clean, simple, and also knowing which "upstream" svn  
> "thing"
> it's following.

Isn't what git-svn already does if you git-svn clone with `-T trunk - b branches -t tags'? At least in my git-svn repositories I do see the SVN branches as remote branches with `git branch -r'

-- 
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory

Benoit SIGOURE· Aug 21, 2007, 17:55 UTC · re: David Watson · lore

Re: Multiple branches and git-svn

On Aug 21, 2007, at 1:56 PM, David Watson wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> 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.

To me this sounds exaggerated, I fell in the pitfall once after a git- rebase but never had the problem again since then.

Show 19 quoted lines

>
> 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? 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.
>

IMO the only think that git-svn dcommit needs is an option to specify to which SVN branch you want to commit in case you want your commit to go in another branch than that specified in the last git-svn-id line.

-- 
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory