[Geany-devel] Git conversion completed
techet at xxxxx
Sun Oct 9 14:49:57 UTC 2011
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 15:38, Colomban Wendling
<lists.ban at herbesfolles.org> wrote:
> 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 :
>>>> 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:
>>>> 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
>>> 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
> 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 :)
OK, I've re-uploaded the repositories to the same locations. I've
fixed the incorrect merge issue and updated parents for most of the
The only one I haven't updated is the "Create branch for configurable
build menu development", now commit 80d2802. There's something strange
- it appears the branch existed before but it was never merged into
trunk. Instead it was probably deleted and re-created again. If I
updated the parent to be the trunk only, we'd lose the history of this
branch because we couldn't get to the previous commits in any way. So
I think it's better to keep it the way it is.
More information about the Devel