On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 05:42:03AM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 12/09/2011 04:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > Hi Jorge, > > > > Ok, no problem, I'll go back to the #git channel tomorrow and > > investigate how to do that. > > Have you received my other mail with notes on git commit-tree and how it > can help here? It was sent "Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:43:45 +0100". Yes, I saw it, but it doesn't seem to do what we want. It merges the branches together instead of swapping them.
> > I would prefer to do it without merge commits if possible What I want is something like: git branch -m master catalyst_3 git branch -m catalyst_2 master # now update the upstream repo to match this. # I'm not sure if this will cause a forced update or not though. > > What would be the gain here? The gain is that git log doesn't show a merge commit, and you aren't pushing another 70 plus commits to the master branch, so you keep the history clean. Best, William
pgp6yF3xkRgsw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
