Skip to main content

The Dream of a Bi-directional Git-SVN mirror

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

I just got an email asking me how one can set up a bi-directional Git-SVN mirror. It ended up being quite a long answer, so I'll post it here for the benefit of other Git-SVN readers with the same idea.

As you may know, I'm a proponent of my own Git-SVN setup.

I remember trying to go down the path of a bi-directional repository, but always ran into problems. Here is how it could work:




However nice this would be to have, it can be very hard to achieve in practice:

Git-svn requires working in a non-bare repository, so pushing to it is by default refused. You can work around this by doing this in the target sync repo:

git config receive.denyCurrentBranch ignore

You also have to automatically perform a git reset --hard in the syncing repo after each push (by some git hook?), because the work-dir is considered dirty when it is out of sync with the repository (a consequence of the previous workaround).

And now comes the really tricky part. Consider the following example:

  1. Bob commits change A in his local git repository, and pushes this to the sync repo.
  2. The sync repo does a git svn fetch (automatically to retain linear history).
  3. It then performs a dcommit, but in doing so, Bob's commit is re-written (with SVN meta data), therefore the commit changes into being .
  4. The central git repo dcommits the change to the SVN repo.

You see what has happened now? Bob's history has diverged from that of the sync repo:

Bob's history:    X <- Y <- Z <- A
Central history: X <- Y <- Z <- A´

So the next time Bob does a pull, Git will see that history has diverged, and automatically create a merge commit so Bob's history looks like this:
                               A
Bob's history: X <- Y <- Z <- /  \ <- merge commit
                              \  /
                               A´

You don't want this to happen, because next time Bob pushes, the merge commit will be dcommited, and so an evil circle is created.

You can avoid this by getting Bob to do a git pull --rebase, as Git (at least now when I tried it out) automagically figures out that A and are actually the same commit, and discards the former of them appropriately.

You still will have to deal with some other problems:

* Concurrency between commits - basically if somebody commits to SVN before the git repository has a time to sync a push from a git user, your syncing-repo gets messed up and needs to be manually reset (and probably the git pusher will have to repeat his push). This can get ugly, and it would happen relatively often in a busy repository.

* In case you have set up a physically split bare-repo and fetching-repo (like I've recommended on numerous occasions), the concurrency issues get slightly worsened, as you need to implement some locking mechanism across both repositories. Perhaps the best thing to do here is to go back to one single git/svn syncing-repo instead.

In summary:

  • Your developers will have to always do pull --rebase before and after pushing.
  • It has to be a low-traffic subversion repository, preferably all committers sitting co-located.
  • You have to be ready to dive in and fix any problems quickly (or have several people who can).

So, I hope you have enough information to properly consider whether this is worth going for. If you do, I would love to hear how it works out.

For the record: I do not recommend the bi-directional syncing repo approach. I still prefer my original setup where each developer is responsible for dcommitting back to Subversion. It's not so much more complicated for the Git users, and it is much safer, concurrency-wise.

Popular posts from this blog

Encrypting and Decrypting with Spring

I was recently working with protecting some sensitive data in a typical Java application with a database underneath. We convert the data on its way out of the application using Spring Security Crypto Utilities. It "was decided" that we'd be doing AES with a key-length of 256, and this just happens to be the kind of encryption Spring crypto does out of the box. Sweet!

The big aber is that whatever JRE is running the application has to be patched with Oracle's JCE in order to do 256 bits. It's a fascinating story, the short version being that U.S. companies are restricted from exporting various encryption algorithms to certain countries, and some countries are restricted from importing them.

Once I had patched my JRE with the JCE, I found it fascinating how straight forward it was to encrypt and decrypt using the Spring Encryptors. So just for fun at the weekend, I threw together a little desktop app that will encrypt and decrypt stuff for the given password and sa…

Managing dot-files with vcsh and myrepos

Say I want to get my dot-files out on a new computer. Here's what I do:

# install vcsh & myrepos via apt/brew/etc
vcsh clone https://github.com/tfnico/config-mr.git mr
mr update

Done! All dot-files are ready to use and in place. No deploy command, no linking up symlinks to the files. No checking/out in my entire home directory as a Git repository. Yet, all my dot-files are neatly kept in fine-grained repositories, and any changes I make are immediately ready to be committed:

config-atom.git
    -> ~/.atom/*

config-mr.git
    -> ~/.mrconfig
    -> ~/.config/mr/*

config-tmuxinator.git  
    -> ~/.tmuxinator/*

config-vim.git
    -> ~/.vimrc
    -> ~/.vim/*

config-bin.git   
    -> ~/bin/*

config-git.git          
    -> ~/.gitconfig

config-tmux.git  
    -> ~/.tmux.conf    

config-zsh.git
    -> ~/.zshrc

How can this be? The key here is to use vcsh to keep track of your dot-files, and its partner myrepos/mr for operating on many repositories at the same time.

I discovere…

Always use git-svn with --prefix

TLDR: I've recently been forced back into using git-svn, and while I was at it, I noticed that git-svn generally behaves a lot better when it is initialized using the --prefix option.

Frankly, I can't see any reason why you would ever want to use git-svn without --prefix. It even added some major simplifications to my old git-svn mirror setup.

Update: Some of the advantages of this solution will disappear in newer versions of Git.

For example, make a standard-layout svn clone:

$ git svn clone -s https://svn.company.com/repos/project-foo/

You'll get this .git/config:

[svn-remote "svn"]
        url = https://svn.company.com/repos/
        fetch = project-foo/trunk:refs/remotes/trunk
        branches = project-foo/branches/*:refs/remotes/*
        tags = project-foo/tags/*:refs/remotes/tags/*

And the remote branches looks like this (git branch -a):
    remotes/trunk
    remotes/feat-bar

(Compared to regular remote branches, they look very odd because there is no remote name i…

The End of GitMinutes (my podcast)

I'm just about ship GitMinutes episode 46, which is going to be the final episode. I'll just paste the outro script here, as it sums up the sentimental thoughts pretty well:

I’m happy to have finally finished [publishing the last episodes from Git-Merge 2017], just in time before Git-Merge 2018 takes place in March. I won’t be going there myself, so I’m counting on someone else to pick up the mic there.

It’s sad to be shipping this one as it is probably the last GitMinutes episode ever. To go a bit down memory lane, 6 years ago, my daughter was born, and as I used a little of that paternity leave to set up my podcasting infrastructure and produce the first few episodes. Initially it was just going to be 10 episodes and call the experiment finished. Instead, I got to 46 episodes, the last dozen or so lazily tailing the last few Git-Merge conferences.

To every one of my guests, thank you so much again for coming on to share your passion in this little niche of computer science a…

Joining eyeo: A Year in Review

It's been well over a year since I joined eyeo. And 'tis the season for yearly reviews, so...

It's been pretty wild. So many times I thought "this stuff really deserves a bloggin", but then it was too inviting to grab onto the next thing and get that rolling.

Instead of taking a deep dive into some topic already, I want to scan through that year in review and think for myself, what were the big things, the important things, the things I achieved, and the things I learned. And then later on, if I ever get around to it, grab one of these topics and elaborate in a dedicated blog-post. Like a bucket-list of the blog posts that I should have written. Here goes:
How given no other structures, silos will grow by themselves This was my initial shock after joining the company. Only a few years after taking off as a startup, the hedges began growing, seemingly almost by themselves, and against the will of the founders. I've worked in silos, and in companies without the…