[Geany-devel] Git conversion completed

[Jiří Techet]

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 20:15, Colomban Wendling
<lists.ban at herbesfolles.org> wrote:
> Le 09/10/2011 19:03, Jiří Techet a écrit :
>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 17:59, Colomban Wendling
>> <lists.ban at herbesfolles.org> wrote:
>>> Le 09/10/2011 16:49, Jiří Techet a écrit :
>>>> 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:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> * 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
>>>> re-created branches.
>>>
>>> Yep, looks great, bravo!
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> OK, makes sense, even though the old build-system branch was dropped
>>> because it was "corrupted" (according to r3939: "Removing corrupted
>>> branch").
>>
>> Ah, OK, I've overlooked this. If you want to make some more changes,
>> create a file called "grafts" inside .git/info. Each line of this file
>> has format
>>
>> parent child1 child2 child3... (using commit SHAs depending on number
>> of children)
>
> Isn't it rather child parent1 parent2...?  Looks like it does a better
> job, if I understand the result correctly ^^  anyway, thanks for the tips :)

Correct. I used sequence

writing thinking1 thinking2 thinking3

instead of

thinking writing1 writing2 writing3

which explains the result :-).

>
> Anyway I chosen to keep the previous branch as you did it so there is
> some more history, yet it is strange.

Agree, it's hard to say what the right way is in this case anyway.

Cheers,
Jiri