FYI: SVN to GIT converter currently broken, github is falling behind

Bryan Drewery bdrewery at
Fri Dec 4 19:53:41 UTC 2015

On 12/4/2015 10:49 AM, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> 2015-11-08 12:06 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Spörlein <uqs at>:
>> 2015-11-08 11:32 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Spörlein <uqs at>:
>>> 2015-11-08 2:51 GMT+01:00 Alfred Perlstein <alfred at>:
>>>> Uli,
>>>> One of the biggest concerns I've heard from folks using FreeBSD's git mirror
>>>> is that the hashes can change.
>>>> I have a question about this.   Is it possible to keep track of what the
>>>> "official" git mirror (on github) is doing and keep that as a log.  Then
>>>> that log can be used to replay commits when there is a divergence problem.
>>>> What I'm basically saying is that let's take this small example:
>>>> importer is working fine @rev 10000
>>>> imports 10000
>>>> imports 10001
>>>> imports 10002
>>>> something happens to importer to give indeterminate shas.
>>>> imports 10003 - sha is "unstable" sha3
>>>> imports 10004 - sha is "unstable" sha4
>>>> imports 10005 - sha is "unstable" sha5
>>>> imports 10006 - sha is "unstable" sha6
>>>> importer is fixed
>>>> At this point normally we'd rewind the importer to 10002 and then force
>>>> update the affected branches.
>>>> My question is... can the imports of 10003, 10004, 10005 and 10006 be put
>>>> into the importer such that any "mirror site" that re-does the import using
>>>> the most up to date importer will get the same shas.
>>>> That would allow to proceed with 10007, etc without force pushing.
>>>> This should be possible based on querying "git" for the meta data associated
>>>> with sha3..sha6 and then forcing those commits to have the same meta data.
>>>> This would eliminate the concern about shas in the mirror changing that I've
>>>> heard.
>>> The goal of the conversion is that everyone can re-do the conversion
>>> in their basement and come up with the same history and checksums.
>>> This was not the case when I first started, as there was some
>>> non-deterministic hash structure being used in svn2git. This was fixed
>>> in the code and then all converter runs produced the very same
>>> results.
>>> The scenario that we have right now, is that one of the merge commits
>>> done about two weeks ago is being handled different by svn2git w/ svn
>>> v1.8 vs. svn v1.9 and I haven't investigated yet how the API's
>>> behavior changed to cause this. I'm afraid I also swapped out all my
>>> knowledge about svn2git internals and will have to redo this all from
>>> scratch :/
>>> Your suggestion could only work, if we hard-code this svn revision
>>> special handling into svn2git, either in the code or by providing more
>>> mappings and rules to the process. svn2git should run hermetic and not
>>> poke at github's commits to see how things were handled in the past.
>>> It has to be self-sufficient and must not depend on github.
>>> This would also only work, if the "breakage" window was very small,
>>> but it is already about two weeks long and will surely increase till I
>>> find the proper fix.
>>> So, to take a stand here: this sort of kludge is unlikely to ever
>>> happen. Git commit hashes *might* change in the future. I really don't
>>> see how this is a big deal anyway.  It happened once and I'm trying to
>>> have it never happen again. But why are people afraid of this
>>> happening? Every "official" git commit is tagged with a SVN revision
>>> and the contents of those revisions are obviously correct (just not
>>> the ancestry and the commit objects, possibly). So it would be easy to
>>> write a script that replays VendorA's git history and swaps out the
>>> new official commits for the old official commits. There would be no
>>> merge conflicts.
>>> I can see how this would be annoying if you have 100 developers and
>>> dozens of branches that are far from mainline FreeBSD. But I'm sure
>>> these companies that depend on git will come forward and donate some
>>> of their developer manpower to help me with keeping the converter
>>> stable/deterministic. Right? Right? :) :)
>>> Cheers,
>>> Uli
>> Quick update: doc is so far unaffected by svn 1.9, but for ports, the
>> drift happened as of Jul 18, so you'd need to special case a lot of
>> commits.
>> Here's the same commit, and the difference between 1.8 and 1.9:
>> % git cat-file commit 803795d
>> tree 7fc83aba022834da5c218114b09ad4640735bcc0
>> parent c96fb0418e545a569b5975b4d878a30a948c29d5
>> author olgeni <olgeni at> 1437203525 +0000
>> committer olgeni <olgeni at> 1437203525 +0000
>> Upgrade to version 0.4.1.
>> % git cat-file commit 61ca43b
>> tree 7fc83aba022834da5c218114b09ad4640735bcc0
>> parent c96fb0418e545a569b5975b4d878a30a948c29d5
>> author olgeni <olgeni at> 1437203529 +0000
>> committer olgeni <olgeni at> 1437203529 +0000
>> Upgrade to version 0.4.1.
>> In case you don't see it, there's a 4s difference in the timestamps
>> for authoring and committing. Here's the original:
>> % svn log -vc392405 svn://
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> r392405 | olgeni | 2015-07-18 09:12:05 +0200 (Sat, 18 Jul 2015) | 2 lines
>> Changed paths:
>>    M /head/www/elixir-maru/Makefile
>>    M /head/www/elixir-maru/distinfo
>> Upgrade to version 0.4.1.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> So yeah, svn 1.9 returned a timestamp that was off by 4s. WTF?
>> For base it's actually even more complicated than I had thought so
>> far. But let's take this one step at time ...
> An update, which you won't like to hear:
> SVN v1.9 is totally innocent, the API changed a little and has been
> patched, this is not the source of the difference between the
> currently published repo and a clean run. The difference stems from
> the fact that the svnsync'ed copy on was poisoned and
> is *NOT* in sync with our main repo. People tell me this is due to a
> shortcoming of svnsync that can race and thus produce different
> metadata for a commit, depending on when it is run.
> This is a clusterfuck.
> Both freebsd-base and freebsd-ports are no longer reproducible by
> third-parties. It is only a matter of time when freebsd-doc is
> affected.
> clusteradm@ sadly has remained rather silent on this issue and unless
> we can move the mirroring to rsync or syncthing or whatever I don't
> see how the project can continue to provide a so-called git "mirror"

Running svnsync in 2 places and then calling them mirrors seems odd.
It's only needed once. (svnsync hurts global warming too). Then just
rsync or use the git mirroring features.

Bryan Drewery

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the freebsd-git mailing list