[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I screw up git release/unstable
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: I screw up git release/unstable |
Date: |
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:02:52 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>> There are basically two ways to do that. One is more or less a relabel
>> and would consequentially lose history.
>
> If it loses history from release/unstable, I consider that a desirable
> side effect.
>
>> The other is a trivial merge
>> with master with a merge strategy that lets master win always. The
>> latter should make it easier for people to pull, I think.
>
> AFAIK I'm the only one who uses release/unstable, so that's not a huge
> concern.
>
> Do whichever is easiest/safest for you, please.
I am afraid that I _kept_ the history (though trying to get rid of it).
Which likely means that merging with anything having commits that you
had in release/unstable will not include those commits "again".
Sorry, I am not sure that this is the best. One rather reliable way to
lose history should be to delete and recreate the branch, something like
git push origin :release/unstable
git push origin master:release/unstable
If it is just you using the branch, it should likely work, but not
really be helpful in the way of archiving the release/unstable history.
--
David Kastrup