1 |
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:16 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 05:42:03AM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
3 |
>> On 12/09/2011 04:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
4 |
>> > Hi Jorge, |
5 |
>> > |
6 |
>> > Ok, no problem, I'll go back to the #git channel tomorrow and |
7 |
>> > investigate how to do that. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> Have you received my other mail with notes on git commit-tree and how it |
10 |
>> can help here? It was sent "Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:43:45 +0100". |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Yes, I saw it, but it doesn't seem to do what we want. It merges the |
13 |
> branches together instead of swapping them. |
14 |
> |
15 |
>> > I would prefer to do it without merge commits if possible |
16 |
> |
17 |
> What I want is something like: |
18 |
> |
19 |
> git branch -m master catalyst_3 |
20 |
> git branch -m catalyst_2 master |
21 |
> # now update the upstream repo to match this. |
22 |
> # I'm not sure if this will cause a forced update or not though. |
23 |
> |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> What would be the gain here? |
26 |
> |
27 |
> The gain is that git log doesn't show a merge commit, and you aren't |
28 |
> pushing another 70 plus commits to the master branch, so you keep the |
29 |
> history clean. |
30 |
|
31 |
What Sebastian was suggesting was this, which works (I just verified locally) |
32 |
|
33 |
git checkout master |
34 |
git branch catalyst_3 # creates a branch identical to master called catalyst_3 |
35 |
git branch -M catalyst_2 master # renames the catalyst_2 branch to master |