Yoooooooooooo !! > Thank you! I was thinking about a different situation: I already have the > new_branch, I want to merge it with an updated develop branch, and the result > of > the operation should still be called new_branch.
Hmmmm.... Well, in this case if you have never compiled the updated develop branch I am afraid that you will have to do it at least once O_o The point is that you never really have to compile a new develop more than once. You pull it, you compile it, and then you never have to checkout a branch that is not 'above' develop so it's fine. > Up to now, in the above situation, I would *not* merge new_branch into > the updated develop and call the result again new_branch, since I was > too often told that this is changing history, for some weird notion of > history. I don't get why this could be called 'rewriting history' either. Or is it because, technically, I never merge anything into develop ? I always create an empty branch where develop is, then merge whatever I want into that. I never touch develop at all. > Instead, I would merge the updated develop branch into > new_branch, and push to trac if needed (otherwise do git reset --hard > HEAD~). > > But this would mean to touch a lot of files, if new_branch is based on > top of an old version. Fortunately there is ccache... Well, when an old branch is based on an old version of develop I always merge it with a more recent develop and push that commit. It cannot hurt, and you do not have to recompile anything (nor the reviewer, by the way). Have fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun ! Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-release. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
