| 1 |
On 12/09/2011 05:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> Yes, I saw it, but it doesn't seem to do what we want. It merges the |
| 3 |
> branches together instead of swapping them. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Maybe it's not what _you_ want, but it does |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
- make catalyst_2 content appear on master |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
- doesn't break fast forward "git pull" for anyone |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
- supports branching catalyst_2 off master, too |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
So besides the merge commit, this can look like rename from the outside. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
>>> I would prefer to do it without merge commits if possible |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> What I want is something like: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> git branch -m master catalyst_3 |
| 21 |
> git branch -m catalyst_2 master |
| 22 |
> # now update the upstream repo to match this. |
| 23 |
> # I'm not sure if this will cause a forced update or not though. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It does, a forced push would be necessary: |
| 26 |
you are pushing commits to master that are not successors of the remote |
| 27 |
master's HEAD. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
>> What would be the gain here? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> The gain is that git log doesn't show a merge commit, and you aren't |
| 33 |
> pushing another 70 plus commits to the master branch, so you keep the |
| 34 |
> history clean. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
A clean history is *not* a history without merge commits but a history |
| 37 |
reflecting what happened in reality. There are cases where it makes |
| 38 |
sens to even force a merge commit using git merge --no-ff to clearly |
| 39 |
indicate that a dedicated branch was merged back. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Best, |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Sebastian |
Archives