| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 09:31:26PM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/08/2011 08:46 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If no one objects, I will look into doing this next week; the catalyst_2 |
| 4 |
> > code should move to master since there doesn't appear to be any work |
| 5 |
> > going on for releasing catalyst 3. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Comments? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Sounds like you are going for complete replacement. Good move. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The cleanest way to do this this in Git may be: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> # git checkout master |
| 15 |
> # git merge -s theirs catalyst_2 |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Haven't tested it though. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I checked it out with the folks on #git, and they are recommending |
| 20 |
that I rename catalyst_2 to master. I was given a series of commands to |
| 21 |
do this. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The down side is that this will cause a forced update, so everyone will |
| 24 |
have to re-clone the repository. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The target time I am considering for this is Monday, Dec 11, 0:00 utc. |
| 27 |
What that means is, everyone needs to have their changes pushed by then, |
| 28 |
then I'll make the change and send out an email here once I'm done. |
| 29 |
Then, you will have to re-clone your repositories. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Any comments? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Thanks, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
William |
Archives