On Aug 21, 2007, at 1:56 PM, David Watson wrote:
Yes, that's quite true. It took me quite a while to figure that out when I first started using git-svn, and its non-sensicalness nearly put me off using git entirely. My workflow at this point is to use git-cherry-pick - e to pull inany changes from other branches, then delete the git-svn-id line. Essentially, merging using git-svn is almost entirely broken, since aninconsistent tool is worthless - you spend more time figuring out if it's goingto break, and working around the breakage, than you save using it.
To me this sounds exaggerated, I fell in the pitfall once after a git- rebase but never had the problem again since then.
Now, I'm not sure this is 100% the fault of git-svn. Perhaps keeping its metadata about which SVN branch it's connected to isn't the best thing, but git-merge is doing exactly what you ask for. Perhaps we need a merge command in git-svn that does the right thing? Although what that right thing would be, I'm not quite sure. Either way, there needs to be a BIG GIGANTIC WARNING in the git-svn manual that if you actually use git for what it claims to be great at (i.e., merging) you may be in for a world of pain, with your coworkers and boss coming at you with pitchforks and torches. Especially because there areso many git users who need to interoperate with SVN.
IMO the only think that git-svn dcommit needs is an option to specify to which SVN branch you want to commit in case you want your commit to go in another branch than that specified in the last git-svn-id line.
-- Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna EPITA Research and Development Laboratory
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
