On 12/09/2011 05:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > Yes, I saw it, but it doesn't seem to do what we want. It merges the > branches together instead of swapping them.
Maybe it's not what _you_ want, but it does - make catalyst_2 content appear on master - doesn't break fast forward "git pull" for anyone - supports branching catalyst_2 off master, too So besides the merge commit, this can look like rename from the outside. >>> 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. It does, a forced push would be necessary: you are pushing commits to master that are not successors of the remote master's HEAD. >> 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. A clean history is *not* a history without merge commits but a history reflecting what happened in reality. There are cases where it makes sens to even force a merge commit using git merge --no-ff to clearly indicate that a dedicated branch was merged back. Best, Sebastian
