Anton Korobeynikov <email@example.com> writes:
I think the trouble with branches is the lockdown of the root repository
Surely not (at the server)
Yes, but ordinary users can't try to experiment and find a set of
options that work as long as the server is locked down. So we have to
go through server admins, which seems inefficient. But, I'm ok with
that if we're making progress.
git svn init --stdlayout https://<user>@llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm \
Several problems here:
1. Bunch of additional branches / tags are created due to multiple
branch points. I don't recall for llvm, but for clang we'll end with
two tags per each release. Something like:
$ git branch -r
Yep. But is this really a problem? All of these tags and branches must
be useful, or why create them? If they aren't useful, add them to the
The problem will be much worse with new release branch scheme,
basically we'll need to add each branch by hand, etc...
Why? Ultimately the top level of llvm looks like the standard
2. We really don't want to push arbitrary branches to git repository.
It's really easy to add branch by an accident, so it will be much
You mean add a brach through the git-svn mirror via "git svn branch?"
How can someone do that without having permission on the server? This
seems like an svn permissions issue to me.
Or are you worried about some svn user adding a branch? Again, this
seems like a server permissions issue. The LLVM policy is "no branches"
so why don't we enforce it and only allow the release manager to create
better not to ignore stuff, but except - add by some pattern.
Unfortunately, git-svn does not allow this yet.
That certainly would be a useful feature. It shouldn't be hard to
implement as it's just a perl script. Getting it accepted upstream and
pushed out to clients is the bigger problem.
So, right now I'm experimenting with various ways of doing stuff, but
the results looks not pretty good.
What's not good about them?
So far my experience is that git svn does a really good job following
svn branches and making them available via git. See for example this
More experimentation is necessary, though. I'm still pretty new at
If anything would give me a working all-in-one cmdline / .git/config
entry - I'd really appreciate this
I just blew mine away to try something else. But it did work well
before. I'll send the new one to you when it's ready.
I'm playing around with some git-svn stuff here with our repositories.
If I find anything interesting I'll let you know.
I believe the key to making this work is to have a separate "svn commit"
branch in the user's git clone so that people who do dcommit always do
it from there. That way git svn rebase won't screw up their "normal"
git branches. I've tried a bit of this and it seems if one isolates the
git svn stuff to its own branch, things work pretty smoothly.
> git svn init/fetch
> git clone
The user does a "git pull" into their local master, works on it, creates
local branches, etc. just as a normal git user would. Once something is
ready to go upstream, the user does the following:
git commit -a (commit to local git master)
git checkout commit
git merge master
git svn rebase
git svn dcommit
Then the next git clone to master will pick up the change history and
not conflict with the change as it exists in the user's local master.
I did this with the existing LLVM git mirror on my most recent commit to
verify that there were no issues. It was a simple change to a component
that doesn't change much, but I'm going to get some more experience with
this in the coming days and weeks.
I set things up a suggested by Tobias Grosser:
It works well for trunk. I think it should work equally well if/when
branches are added to the git mirror. Since no one should be committing
to branches except the release manager, everything will always go
upstream through the local "commit" branch. This keeps the svn metadata
From my point of view, the main reason to add the branches to the git
mirror is to *greatly* ease the burden for third parties when they
upgrade to a new release AND when they send patches upstream. The git
branch/merge/conflict resolution process is just killer for this. I
imagine most third parties don't work off of trunk. We certainly don't.