+1. I love git and all, but sometimes simple patches against SVN are nice too.
On May 6, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > I love it. > > Except when I have to do it. > > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ugh. Did not merge well onto my git branch. I hate revision control. :( >> >> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Usually this works just fine. You rebase any pending changes to the new >>> version from the git mirror and everything is good. If the changes >> appear >>> bit for bit, then it just works. If there are whitespace changes or some >>> such, then you may get a conflict. >>> >>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Another nice option is to pull from the apache git mirror and do [git >>>> diff] >>>>> to generate patches that get applied via normal SVN methods. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is what I've been doing, but the point I've been worried about is >>> once >>>> you generate a patch from git diff, and apply it to SVN, and then that >>>> propagates >>>> back to the apache github mirror... if you merge that github >> apache/trunk >>>> branch into the branch you made the patch off of on github originally, >>> does >>>> git notice the correct SHA1 patches are already there and "just work"? >>>> >>>> -jake >>>> >>> >>
