On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:16 AM, William Hubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
What Sebastian was suggesting was this, which works (I just verified locally) git checkout master git branch catalyst_3 # creates a branch identical to master called catalyst_3 git branch -M catalyst_2 master # renames the catalyst_2 branch to master
