[Geany-devel] Git conversion completed

[Colomban Wendling]

Le 09/10/2011 14:36, Jiří Techet a écrit :
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 13:55, Colomban Wendling
> <lists.ban at herbesfolles.org> wrote:
>> Le 09/10/2011 02:13, Jiří Techet a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've completed the conversion to git. It went quite smoothly because I
>>> did it already before and fortunately the checksums remained the same
>>> so I could reuse the grafts files I already had (to be sure, I checked
>>> all the entries one by one).
>>>
>>> The repository is here:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/techee/geany
>>>
>>> Please have a good look at it. It's no problem to change it now but it
>>> will be hard once people start using it. For this reason please resist
>>> the temptation and don't update your branches on top of the repository
>>> yet. It's safer to wait until everyone agrees the repository is
>>> alright.
>>
>> Looks good, great job again! :)
>>
>> Just a few questions/remarks:
>>
>> * the unstable branch don't seem to be always removed after merging, yet
>> it is re-created (4f20d88, 2f9719e).  This seem not correct since
>> according to svn, in both commits the branch was actually created.
>>
>> * why does 3155474 have two parents?  It's supposed to be a new branch
>> out of 3a4a5b6; the old build-system branch was removed in r3939
>> (previous rev).
> 
> These two are exactly the points 2 and 4 from
> 
> http://lists.uvena.de/geany-devel/2011-September/005232.html

Oops, my bad :o

> The problem is that svn2git doesn't delete the branch after merging it
> so when the branch is re-crated, it has two parents - the current
> trunk and the last commit from the branch before it was merged. This
> was the case both for the unstable branch and configurable menu branch
> which existed before already.
> 
> I was asking whether to to fix these and the answer was that it's not
> so important but you're right it looks strange so I'll go through the
> repository and fix the most obvious cases. It's not much work anyway.

I agree it's not so important, just looks a bit weird.  If you can fix
those easily it's cool, but if it's too hard just don't bother, it's not
really a problem.

>> * 03c3b75 (r3679) is a bit weird too, it has d3cdd27 (r3680) as parent,
>> but as the SVN revision suggests, d3cdd27 is newer than it (13:53:04 vs
>> 13:45:47).  And I don't see from SVN log why this would be wanted.
> 
> This is apparently my error - judging from the date I should have used
> d71d352 for "merge trunk changes". I'll fix that.

Great, looking forward to it.  I think when this is done all is OK, so
we could import it in the official repo :)

Cheers,
Colomban