Git repo ready!

[John Ralls]

On Mar 12, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Christian Stimming wrote:

> Am Samstag, 12. März 2011 schrieb John Ralls:
>>>>>>>>> However, I think the git repo is missing many of the recent tags,
>>>>>>>>> e.g. the 2.4.3 tag.
>>> 
>>> Sorry to bug you again, but the tags (e.g. 2.4.3) seem to belong to a
>>> different branch than origin/master. Do I see the same repo as you do? On
>>> my local repo, origin/master is 4d1754d2492c8b3118418b0c378feda5e71053aa
>>> "Updated Dutch translation ..."
>>> but the tag 2.4.3 is
>>> e2d71eb340534907c0b2e69e3f4acf2490beb09f where instead it should be
>>> something right next to c6314a4aa5c6923bbf7c54247c52950a4987758f "Only
>>> show the Save As dialog..."
>> 
>> There is no master unless you create it (I recommend in the wiki article
>> that you create it as a tracking branch on trunk). The main branch is
>> "trunk", and that's the branch you should have checked out when you commit
>> back to subversion (until we set up the 2.4 branch, at which point you'll
>> be able to commit back to that branch as well).
> 
> Well. I've just created a newly cloned local repo, exactly following your 
> instructions from the wiki page. I was wrong when talking about 
> "origin/master"; instead, I meant "origin/trunk". Yes, that *is* the branch I 
> have checked out.
> 
>> I don't know what repo you're looking at; let's look at what's on Github.
>> Select 2.4.3 from the "switch tags" dropdown, then switch to the "commits"
>> view.
> 
> I've been looking at my local clone of the github repo. Your explanation of 
> the 2.4.3 tag is identical to what I see with gitk in my local repo, where the 
> 2.4.3 tag is e2d71eb340534907c0b2e69e3f4acf2490beb09f which you've just 
> confirmed. The problem is somewhere else:
> 
> My point is that this tag isn't created on the correct trunk branch. Its one 
> parent currently is 88c6a5be95 (SVN r20344) whereas instead its parent should 
> have been c6314a4aa (also SVN r20344). The former isn't a parent of github's 
> "trunk" whereas the latter is, so the latter is where the tag should be.

Ah, I see. It appears that git-filter created a separate chain of commits when I rebuilt the tags. I'll have to figure out how to rebase it back to a single chain. I may not get to that until tomorrow.

Regards,
John Ralls