Skip to main content

Git+SVN #4: Collaborate with other Git users

This post is part of a series on Git and Subversion. To see all the related posts, screencasts and other resources, please click here. 




This one explains some more of the physics of syncing repositories between Git and Subversion land.  The big morale is that you can't really work with branches the way they were made in Git. History will have to be linear by the time you want to push back to Subversion, if you don't want to lose history. This basically requires every merge operation to be a rebase instead.

Theoretically, you could do branches between Git collaborators, but it's probably best to not stay so long out in Git before pushing changes back to Subversion, anyway, so the case for doing any useful branches are basically lost.

You can still do local branching for experimenting with some wild refactoring, or just for sorting different working sets of your code (I do this a lot, in fact). But as long as it's going back to Subversion, it'll have to be straightened up and rebased sooner or later.

Feedback?
This episode is a lot longer than the first ones, almost 15 minutes. I like to keep them shorter, but there was a lot of stuff to go through. I don't spend a huge amount preparing for the recording, and I'm not so interested in spending too much time editing it anyway, so there is some slack in there.

There's a lot of command line action in these videos, so I like going slow and keeping it simple so most viewers can follow what's going on. Do you think the pace is alright? I'd love to hear some more feedback in the comments (preferably here under the blog, not on YouTube).

You can find the first three episodes here.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous5/1/11 19:18

    Thanks for your effort, it's hugely useful - you saved lots of my typing I'd have done to inform our colleagues.

    A note about this particular post - I feel this a bit wrong:
    "This basically requires every merge operation to be a rebase instead ... you could do branches between Git collaborators, but ... the case for doing any useful branches are basically lost."

    In my experience, you can branch/merge away, share with collaborators - assuming you know the rules of the game.
    The only thing: before dcommit "it'll have to be straightened up" - as you rightly said.. but again that's the last stage, and it doesn't even have to be a rebase (merge --squash comes to mind).

    ReplyDelete
  2. tfnico5/1/11 23:44

    Hi Gin, thanks for your comment! I'm glad to hear these posts can be of some benefit out there :)

    You're absolutely right about the merging. You can save all the "ironing" till last, and squash works well for this purpose, although a little rebase-foo might come in handy (like with the --onto argument).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Open source CMS evaluations

I have now seen three more or less serious open source CMS reviews. First guy to hit the field was Matt Raible ( 1 2 3 4 ), ending up with Drupal , Joomla , Magnolia , OpenCms and MeshCMS being runner-ups. Then there is OpenAdvantage that tries out a handful ( Drupal , Exponent CMS , Lenya , Mambo , and Silva ), including Plone which they use for their own site (funny/annoying that the entire site has no RSS-feeds, nor is it possible to comment on the articles), following Matt's approach by exluding many CMS that seem not to fit the criteria. It is somewhat strange that OpenAdvantage cuts away Magnolia because it "Requires J2EE server; difficult to install and configure; more of a framework than CMS", and proceed to include Apache Lenya in the full evaluation. Magnolia does not require a J2EE server. It runs on Tomcat just like Lenya does (maybe it's an idea to bundle Magnolia with Jetty to make it seem more lightweight). I'm still sure that OpenAdvant...
6 comments
Read more

Git tools for keeping patches on top of moving upstreams

At work, we maintain patches for some pretty large open source repositories that regularly release new versions, forcing us to update our patches to match. So far, we've been using basic Git operations to transplant our modifications from one major version of the upstream to the next. Every time we make such a transplant, we simply squash together the modifications we made in the previous version, and land it as one big commit into the next version. Those who are used to very stringent keeping of Git history may wrinkle their nose at this, but it is a pragmatic choice. Maintaining modifications on top of the rapidly changing upstream is a lot of work, and so far we haven't had the opportunity to figure out a more clever way to do it. Nor have we really suffered any consequences of not having an easy to read history of our modifications - it's a relatively small amount of patches, after all. With a recent boost in team size, we may have that opportunity. Also the need for be...
1 comment
Read more

The Git Users Mailing List

A year ago or so, I came across the Git-user mailing list (aka. "Git for human beings"). Over the year, I grew a little addicted to helping people out with their Git problems. When the new git-scm.com webpage launched , and the link to the mailing list had disappeared, I was quick to ask them to add it again . I think this mailing list fills an important hole in the Git community between: The Git developer mailing list git@vger.kernel.org  - which I find to be a bit too hard-core and scary for Git newbies. Besides, the Majordomo mailing list system is pretty archaic, and I personally can't stand browsing or searching in the Gmane archives. The IRC channel #git on Freenode, which is a bit out-of-reach for people who never experienced the glory days of IRC. Furthermore, when the channel is busy, it's a big pain to follow any discussion. StackOverflow questions tagged git , these come pretty close, but it's a bit hard to keep an overview of what questio...
Post a Comment
Read more

Git-SVN Mirror without the annoying update-ref

This post is part of  a series on Git and Subversion . To see all the related posts, screencasts and other resources, please  click here .  So no sooner than I had done my git-svn presentation at JavaZone , I got word of a slightly different Git-SVN mirror setup that makes it a bit easier to work with: In short, my old recipe includes an annoying git update-ref step to keep the git-svn remote reference up to date with the central bare git repo. This new recipe avoids this, so we can simply use git svn dcommit   directly. So, longer version, with the details. My original recipe is laid out in five steps: Clone a fresh Git repo from Subversion. This will be our  fetching repo. Set up a  bare repo. Configure pushing from the fetching repo to bare repo In the shoes of a developer, clone the repo Set up an SVN remote in the developer's repo In the new approach, we redefine those last two steps: (See the original post for how to do the fir...
17 comments
Read more

Git Stash Blooper (Could not restore untracked files from stash)

The other day I accidentally did a git stash -a , which means it stashes *everything*, including ignored output files (target, build, classes, etc). Ooooops.. What I meant to do was git stash -u , meaning stash modifications plus untracked new files. Anyhows, I ended up with a big fat stash I couldn't get back out. Each time I tried, I got something like this: .../target/temp/dozer.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/temp/core.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/temp/joda-time.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/foo.war already exists, no checkout Could not restore untracked files from stash No matter how I tried checking out different revisions (like the one where I actually made the stash), or using --force, I got the same error. Now these were one of those "keep cool for a second, there's a git way to fix this"situation. I figured: A stash is basically a commit. If we look at my recent commits using   git log --graph --...
12 comments
Read more