I simply checkout a new branch (temp) then move the master. Otherwise just moving the branch point is kinda "icky" as you working copy wouldn't be updated.
On Jan 22, 2013, at 14:11 , Prakash Nadar wrote: > Original Gitx Supports moving the branch on checkout branch as well… Since I > have to correct history/change then I would be doing it for the current > checkout branch only. So yeah, not moving to rowanj-Gitx as well. :) > > -prakash > > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Edward Rudd wrote: > >> I'm using RowanJ's fork and it supports the ability to drag and drop >> branches still. Though only when they are not checked out. This one seems to >> be the most active fork too.. ( http://rowanj.github.com/gitx/ ) And it >> seems the gitx.org website is not listing that fork. >> >> And AFAIK every other fork I tried still had that ability on non-checked out >> branches. A feature I really like as well, and with gitg supported.. ( gitg >> is a linux/gnome GUI program "inspired" by GitX ) >> >> >> On Jan 22, 2013, at 13:55 , Prakash wrote: >> >>> Let me throw in a couple of bit... I have been using GitX (the original >>> one) for a while and I like it the way it is, it is simple to use for >>> day-today activity in combination with command line git. If I have to do >>> something serious, repo management etc, I use sourcetree which is free and >>> native as well. >>> >>> One of the nice feature that GitX (original) has is ability to drag and >>> drop the branch-name to point to a new commit and make put the changes of >>> the newer commit into staging area (hope my description makes sense) >>> >>> This has allowed me many many time so correct my change easily without >>> using git rebase -i command. With many forks that I tried with the sidebars >>> ext seems to have removed or disabled this feature... >>> >>> So I strongly vote against Original GitX point to anything else unless this >>> problem is address. I don't want to accidentally update a newer version of >>> Gitx-redirect that removes this very important feature for me. >>> >>> IMO, let gitx be gitx and the forks be forks (yes all the disadvantages of >>> contribution going to the wrong place is understandable but not at he cost >>> of feature I like) >>> >>> There is a gitx.org that points to some of the gitx forks and to the >>> original... maybe Gitx can link to this page and give the new >>> users/contributors/ an idea where to go and put some effort or create a >>> page a similar page at original gitx site. >>> >>> -prakash >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:51:25 AM UTC-8, Pieter de Bie wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey guys, >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Johannes Gilger <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > On 14/01/13 10:41, Josh Bleecher Snyder wrote: >>>> >> Or Pieter could ask the community for volunteers to officially take >>>> >> over >>>> >> GitX, pick one, and make a public announcement, backed up by a >>>> >> statement at >>>> >> the top of his repo's README. >>>> > >>>> > Yeah, that would be a quick reference. >>>> >>>> I'm willing to update my github repo with a reference to another >>>> repository, or even push a final update using the built-in updater of >>>> GitX to download another fork. At this point, I'm not really >>>> interested in resurrecting GitX myself (though I still use it daliy), >>>> but might contribute once in a while if an active fork is created. >>>> >>>> >> > As to being "blessed", this is mostly a question of version-number >>>> >> > and >>>> >> > Google PageRank, isn't it? >>>> >> >>>> >> Bluntly: No, I don't think it is. >>>> >> >>>> >> Open source projects thrive under conditions that make for good >>>> >> coordination. That's easiest when there's an official preferred >>>> >> version, >>>> >> with someone who is actively maintaining it -- even if >>>> >> that maintenance consists of nothing more than having an opinion about >>>> >> direction and handling pull requests. >>>> >> >>>> >> Letting a thousand forks bloom, for a long time, each wandering their >>>> >> own >>>> >> way, is not good for anyone, users or contributors. >>>> >>>> I agree with this, the current situation is kinda confusing and nobody >>>> is profiting from it. >>>> >>>> > Yeah, I'm always open. Disagreements are what mailing lists are good >>>> > for. Let's wait if Pieter voices an oppinion. >>>> >>>> I've looked before into 'blessing' an alternate repository by >>>> redirecting to it; however, in the past I haven't found a fork that >>>> has been active enough for a long enough time to do this. I wanted to >>>> make sure that when I hand over control, it will continue living for a >>>> while instead of dying after a few weeks / months without me being >>>> able to do anything about it. >>>> >>>> That might not be logical -- I guess any progress is better than the >>>> complete absence of me for the past few years. The repo from rowanj >>>> looks like it's active, so it might be best to just redirect to there. >>>> >>>> - Pieter >> >> Edward Rudd >> OutOfOrder.cc >> Skype: outoforder_cc >> 317-674-3296 >> >> >> >> >> >> > Edward Rudd OutOfOrder.cc Skype: outoforder_cc 317-674-3296
