2017-01-28 15:25 GMT+01:00 Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...>:
On Sat, 2017-01-28 at 09:44 +0100, Christoffer Holmstedt wrote:
2017-01-28 6:31 GMT+01:00 Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...>:
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 21:18 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
That sounds frustrating.
Can you explain in more detail what the issue was, so we know
what to
avoid?
It's about how the modifications are recorded as merges. Git has this option of making the history all nice and flat, i.e. a rebase. I needed to use it because Moini's commits had caused 90% of the history to be doubled, basically making the repository broken.
So as long as you never ever have to touch the history once it's made, it might be ok. But other git experts would be good.
Martin,
So due to the migration from bzr to git a lot of commits in bzr turned into "a commit" + "a merge" in git? Is this what you mean with "doubled"?
No, or at least, almost certain.
Is the old repository still available somewhere and could be uploaded for comparison, before and after?
Yes, Ubik made a fork before I clobbered it:
https://gitlab.com/ubik/inkscape-web
See 3,061 commits vs. 1,677
Martin,
Thanks for the link. I've never seen anything like that before, git commits with the same content but different hashes in different branches. Still a bit confused on what have actually happened.