Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:11:42 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ulrich_Sp=C3=B6rlein?= <uspoerlein@gmail.com>, git@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strange commit Message-ID: <CANCZdfpoROXZOn0CdX6w=TK03FWc-f8sR9XJQ4cxb_Mq9GBUqw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2DROg_v47QrxmK-1TuFzqTqf=2e63N7qoX1_V=GyDkyRg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CANCZdfrRuLf6Q3Q-XzDe5wpSV3XCvkhht2ESh=bXbL6wAtt87g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPyFy2Dm12BD4yuGo65T_tQrGXapZxvSSurO=Gwn=2S1drq6ig@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ9axoRs9zWXteeDmZ8L1nucBPqqB-WMGuXTRFyVuxo2h4F11w@mail.gmail.com> <CAPyFy2BgeP=WxeZeYVS3z%2BgzArJe1h9ofO42O7HvznpLBsBKbg@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfo8m4Kg%2BXTbUJYwi1gxOr8C9RobBR0DcZ6D6veiKkOB2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAPyFy2DROg_v47QrxmK-1TuFzqTqf=2e63N7qoX1_V=GyDkyRg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 8:36 PM Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 22:06, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 1:33 PM Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 05:20, Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein <uspoerlein@gmail.c= om> > wrote: > >> > > >> > This is intentional, please see > https://github.com/freebsd/svn2git/blob/1a0b3e0230e1b2430e5d8eb91ac99aeff= 5a1614d/src/svn.cpp#L883 > >> > > >> > Only projects and user branches are represented as merges to master, > as they usually have a full tree. This seemed to match the git model bett= er > (as opposed to the SVN model). > >> > >> IMO we do want vendor code updates recorded as merges. This is already > >> happening today for certain updates (svn merge -c <rev> updates I > >> believe). For example my most recent ELF Tool Chain vendor update: > >> > https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/ca8624403626d5a4e13f5006026ca6b= a40c12ac5 > > > > How do we both do subtree to not not have the vendor repos commingled > inbour tree and do this? > > I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, but there's no problem > for us to have the original snapshotted history just as we do with > merges from svn vendor branches today. > The vendor repos we wanted to do would be complete on their own. We don't want the revisions of those repos in the main repo. A merge commit would make us have them in the main repo. Then again, maybe this eliminates subtree if we can't do that. It was why we were looking at the other one: it creates a repo that is independent of the merged in repo and it requires no extra modules for our users to install. Warner >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfpoROXZOn0CdX6w=TK03FWc-f8sR9XJQ4cxb_Mq9GBUqw>