On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org> wrote:
> On 27.10.2015 14:33, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> See above. It sounds like you need to talk to Github about making an
>> exception to their default settings for revision 0. A freshly
>> initialized git repo, with no files or property changes submitted, has
>> *no* valid logs, and "git log" fails with an error. A freshly
>> initialized svn repo, with no files or properties set, has a no logs
>> but has a revision "0" created at index time.
>> Like I just said: impedance mismatch.
> There's no such thing as "impedance mismatch" when you're implementing a
> wire protocol. if GitHub provides an SVN/HTTP protocol endpoint but
I assume that you *are* aware that the phrase "impedance mismatch"
comes from actual circuitry with actual wires, right? The irony is
pretty funny, especially since my background is bio-electrical
When one protocol has different specifics than the other protocol, you
most certainly *can* have what I'd call an "impedance mismatch". Data
that is required by convention for the initial setup is a great
example. Others include the arbitrary, procedural convention of
branches and tags in Subversion, and the software embedded support for
them in git, and the ability to checkout out only a small portion of a
Subversion repository as a working copy, versus the need to clone the
entire repository for local git working copies.
Being a "wire protocol" doesn't fix that.
> don't emulate a valid r0, then that's no more and no less than a bug in
> their protocol implementation. It doesn't matter that they're using Git
> in the back-end.
I agree this is a bug. But the bug seems to be most noticeable because
"revision 0" needs special handling for doing a reliable svnsync
setup. It doesn't seem necessary for running a local working copy, and
trying to run an svnsync and rely on it presents quite a few more
fascinating potential mismatches.
Received on 2015-10-28 04:39:43 CET