[warzone2100-dev] The gitorious repo sucks because it's missing history
The git repo on gitorious doesn't have all the history from svn, which makes it somewhat painful to retrace old changes. My local git-svn repo was way better in that regard. Is there a way to redo the repo from svn, doctor the transition from old to new svn (berlios to gna) to give continuous history, clean it up with svn2git, and put all new commits on top of that? ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] The gitorious repo sucks because it's missing history
On Nov 3, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Christian Ohm wrote: he git repo on gitorious doesn't have all the history from svn, which makes it somewhat painful to retrace old changes. My local git-svn repo was way better in that regard. Is there a way to redo the repo from svn, doctor the transition from old to new svn (berlios to gna) to give continuous history, clean it up with svn2git, and put all new commits on top of that? This is git, (so in keeping with git=MacGyver) there is a way (perhaps even more than one); the real question is what is the cost of doing so and is the outcome worth that cost? Being far more of an hg person than a git person I have no idea what those ways and their costs might be. -- My Web Sites: http://dak180.users.sourceforge.net/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] The gitorious repo sucks because it's missing history
On Wednesday, 3 November 2010 at 12:46, dak180 wrote: This is git, (so in keeping with git=MacGyver) there is a way (perhaps even more than one); the real question is what is the cost of doing so and is the outcome worth that cost? If it's possible, I'll do the doctoring, so the cost is mostly all current repos being invalidated and everyone having to reclone. The benefit is proper history, imo that's worth it. The question is, is it possible to rebase a complete repo on top of a different base while keeping timestamps etc.? ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] The gitorious repo sucks because it's missing history
How much lost history are we talking about here? - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] The gitorious repo sucks because it's missing history
On 11/3/10, Christian Ohm wrote: On Wednesday, 3 November 2010 at 18:22, Per Inge Mathisen wrote: How much lost history are we talking about here? Almost everything in the svn tags, i.e. the stuff we actually released, and its branch points. I only see 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 3.0-beta1 in git, everything else is missing (even 3.0-beta2...). The way we are doing things (at least, as I understand it), is, we make a new branch for a release, (like 3.0-beta2), then we push whatever changes for release, then we tag it, and finally delete the branch. For the lost history, I thought Cyp just used tags instead of branches, which is why you don't see them ? ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
