Marcin Owsiany <marcin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > git-svn insists on creating the "master" head (unless it exists) on every > "fetch". While it is useful that it gets created initially (users expect this > git convention), some users find it annoying that it gets recreated, especially > when they would like the git branch names to follow SVN repository branch > names. More background in > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/115030 > > Make git-svn skip the "master" creation if there is another head ref pointing > to the same place. This means "master" does get created on initial "clone" but > does not get recreated once a user deletes it. Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for following up on this after all this time :) > Signed-off-by: Marcin Owsiany <marcin@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > git-svn.perl | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/git-svn.perl b/git-svn.perl > index 0b074c4..90f3d06 100755 > --- a/git-svn.perl > +++ b/git-svn.perl > @@ -1613,6 +1613,8 @@ sub post_fetch_checkout { > } > > my $valid_head = verify_ref('HEAD^0'); > + my @heads_commits = eval { command(qw(show-ref --heads --hash)) }; > + return if $valid_head and grep { $_ eq $valid_head } @heads_commits; I (and I believe most git hackers) prefer C-style "&&" for boolean expressions: return if $valid_head && grep { $_ eq $valid_head } @heads_commits; "and" is lower precedence and best reserved for control flow: -f $file and print "File: $file exists!\n"; There's no logical difference in this case, but "&&" is probably easier for C programmers to read. I'll just swap "and" for "&&" and push unless there's any objection from you. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html