ahem - develop is now Pre_R29_develop j. On 27/04/2015 16:42, Jim Procter wrote: > Hi All - just a reminder for posterity. > > We've been doing some branch maintenance, which means: > > * Release_2_8_3_Branch has become Release_2_9_Branch. > * develop has been renamed Pre_29_develop > * A new develop branch has been forked from Release_2_9_Branch. > > The following will fix up your local repository to reflect these changes. > Read on further for help about dealing with problems due to unmerged > branches: > > # rename your local Release_2_8_3_Branch to Release_2_9_Branch > git branch -m Release_2_8_3_Branch Release_2_9_Branch > # update its tracking branch ref > git branch -u origin/Release_2_9_Branch Release_2_9_Branch > > # and the same for develop > git branch -m develop Pre_29_develop > git branch -u origin/Pre_29_develop develop > > Unmerged Changes. > You WILL HAVE PROBLEMS if you try to push unmerged changes on local > branches which were based on either the old Release_2_8_3_Branch or > develop branches. > > 1. Branches tracking Release_2_8_3_Branch > These are straightforward. Simply change your merge strategy so you are > pulling and pushing to your local Release_2_9_Branch. > > 2. Branches forked off Release_2_8_3_Branch. > Again, straightforward. Just use Release_2_9_Branch in any git merge > operations (EGit users will have to make sure they change their default > merge operations here too). > > 3. Anything forked from develop > git rebase is your friend. Pre_29_develop has essentially the same > content as the current develop, but its history diverged, making merging > impossible without a large number of conflicts. Let me know how you get > on.. I've got lots of these too! > > Jim. > _______________________________________________ > Jalview-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/jalview-dev
_______________________________________________ Jalview-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/jalview-dev
