On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> 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 engineering. 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.
