[clug] Git help please - I might be breaking branches

[Alex Satrapa]

On 23/03/2009, at 15:20 , Daniel Pittman wrote:

> Ah.  I stand corrected: you are not doing this the way that the  
> upstream
> git-svn developer recommends, but rather with local branches and  
> merges.  Oh, well.

Searching Google for assistance in git/svn workflows or best practices  
pulls up more documents like this, and nothing like the scheme hinted  
at in the manual page:

http://notes.jimlindley.com/2008/3/25/git-svn-that-works-for-me
http://cheat.errtheblog.com/s/gitsvn/
http://andy.delcambre.com/2008/03/04/git-svn-workflow.html
http://blog.shinetech.com/?p=150
http://www.mantisbt.org/wiki/doku.php/mantisbt:git_svn
http://www.bramschoenmakers.nl/en/node/358

When I started using git-svn I had no idea what that sentence was  
supposed to mean, so I went looking for examples of how people  
actually use it. These suggestions all work nicely, except for the way  
merge commits get transmogrified into patch commits.

Working with Subversion the way that's suggested in the manual  
requires continuous access to the Subversion repository, and every  
change you make has to go through Subversion first. This doesn't work  
well for situations where I write tests, then write the code to pass  
the test (I'll end up with lots of commits that break the continual  
integration server). This is antithetical to the attraction of git as  
a disconnected, distributed version control system with cheap  
branching & merging.

What other hazards are awaiting the lazy patchers like myself?

Alex

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 220 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20090323/dd64a89f/PGP.bin