On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 05:42:03AM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 04:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Hi Jorge,
> > 
> > Ok, no problem, I'll go back to the #git channel tomorrow and
> > investigate how to do that.
> 
> Have you received my other mail with notes on git commit-tree and how it
> can help here?  It was sent "Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:43:45 +0100".
 
 Yes, I saw it, but it doesn't seem to do what we want. It merges the
 branches together instead of swapping them.

> > I would prefer to do it without merge commits if possible

What I want is something like:

git branch -m master catalyst_3
git branch -m catalyst_2 master
# now update the upstream repo to match this.
# I'm not sure if this will cause a forced update or not though.

> 
> What would be the gain here?
 
 The gain is that git log doesn't show a merge commit, and you aren't
 pushing another 70 plus commits to the master branch, so you keep the
 history clean.

Best,

William