Hi,
I'm using git-svn as a tracking-tool for a Subversion repository.
I currently detected an unexpected branch, seeming dead, but visible
using 'git branch -a'. I checked the svn log and saw that someone has
moved/renamed a branch. That results in a deletion of the old branch and
an adding of a copy of the old branch with the new branch name.
The scenario is like that:
$ git branch -a
* master
remotes/svnrepos/git-svn-test
# Rename the branch (move) in the SVN-repos
$ svn mv https://svn.repos/branches/git-svn-test
https://svn.repos/branches/git-svn-test-new
# Update git-repository
$ git svn fetch
$ git branch -a
* master
remotes/svnrepos/git-svn-test
remotes/svnrepos/git-svn-test-new
You see the problem. Within Subversion simply a new repository version
now no longer "showing" the git-svn-test-branch was created. But within
git both branches stay visible.
Well, I know that renaming a branch is really not that favoured action.
But I expected that git-svn gathers also this deletion and removes the
obsolete branch.
So, am I doing something wrong? Or am I expecting the wrong behaviour?
Or is that simply a feature, not a bug, and must be handled manually?
pacco@tropezien.de venit, vidit, dixit 01.12.2010 13:48:
Hi,
I'm using git-svn as a tracking-tool for a Subversion repository.
I currently detected an unexpected branch, seeming dead, but visible
using 'git branch -a'. I checked the svn log and saw that someone has
moved/renamed a branch. That results in a deletion of the old branch and
an adding of a copy of the old branch with the new branch name.
The scenario is like that:
$ git branch -a
* master
remotes/svnrepos/git-svn-test
# Rename the branch (move) in the SVN-repos
$ svn mv https://svn.repos/branches/git-svn-test
https://svn.repos/branches/git-svn-test-new
# Update git-repository
$ git svn fetch
$ git branch -a
* master
remotes/svnrepos/git-svn-test
remotes/svnrepos/git-svn-test-new
You see the problem. Within Subversion simply a new repository version
now no longer "showing" the git-svn-test-branch was created. But within
git both branches stay visible.
Well, I know that renaming a branch is really not that favoured action.
But I expected that git-svn gathers also this deletion and removes the
obsolete branch.
So, am I doing something wrong? Or am I expecting the wrong behaviour?
Or is that simply a feature, not a bug, and must be handled manually?
Branches in svn and git are different. If you delete a branch in svn,
the "content" is still there in the sense that it is there in previous
revisions. You only delete a pointer in your svn-filesystem.
In git, a branch points at a commit, and deleting a branch means making
that commit pointerless (unless it is pointed to by other branches or
tags). So far there's some similarity. But now, if that commit and all
its descendants are "pointerless" (can't be reached from a named ref)
git will garbage collect them after a while. They're considered pointless ;)
svn records the rename as a copy+delete (it also sets some rename info
which git-svn seems to ignore). So, git-svn stays on the safe side by
keeping the branch. Note that deleting the branch would possibly delete
at least some info since the branch name is not recorded in the commit
(if you use svn.noMetadata).
You can safely delete the branch if you're sure its head commit is
contained in some other branch (as will be for an ordinary rename).
Michael
Hi Michael,
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:01:32 +0100, Michael J Gruber
[off-list ref] wrote:
[snipped]
svn records the rename as a copy+delete (it also sets some rename
info
which git-svn seems to ignore). So, git-svn stays on the safe side by
keeping the branch. Note that deleting the branch would possibly
delete
at least some info since the branch name is not recorded in the
commit
(if you use svn.noMetadata).
You can safely delete the branch if you're sure its head commit is
contained in some other branch (as will be for an ordinary rename).
thank you for your explanation. I suspected that this issue might be a
mixture of different VCS-philosophy and uncertainty-handling.
Okay, then I will delete the branch manually. Of course I would have
preferred to have an automatic solution, because I got attention on this
renaming by accident. I hope renaming a branch will not become a new
trend in repository actions.
pacco