| 1 |
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 05:42:03AM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/09/2011 04:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi Jorge, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Ok, no problem, I'll go back to the #git channel tomorrow and |
| 6 |
> > investigate how to do that. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Have you received my other mail with notes on git commit-tree and how it |
| 9 |
> can help here? It was sent "Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:43:45 +0100". |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Yes, I saw it, but it doesn't seem to do what we want. It merges the |
| 12 |
branches together instead of swapping them. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > I would prefer to do it without merge commits if possible |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
What I want is something like: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
git branch -m master catalyst_3 |
| 19 |
git branch -m catalyst_2 master |
| 20 |
# now update the upstream repo to match this. |
| 21 |
# I'm not sure if this will cause a forced update or not though. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> What would be the gain here? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The gain is that git log doesn't show a merge commit, and you aren't |
| 27 |
pushing another 70 plus commits to the master branch, so you keep the |
| 28 |
history clean. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Best, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
William |
Archives