Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] writes:
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
I was not sure if that is even a good idea, and I am now
inclined to think that keeping the failed attempt history is
probably better than potentially causing confusion to people who
follow 'next'. But it _is_ a possibility to reset 'next' to
'master'.
And what is the advantage of doing that, exactly?
Not much and that is why I am not sure if that is a good idea,
but one thing is:
$ git log master..next
$ git log --no-merges master..next
would start showing what are still pending in next without
noise.
With the current 'next', the output of the former is almost
useless, and the latter is useful only until 'next' starts
diverging again from the master and if you are interested in
what will never merged to 'master'. Once 'next' starts growing
again, you will get mixture of what's cooking and what's killed;
the output from the latter would become useless again.
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
I was not sure if that is even a good idea, and I am now
inclined to think that keeping the failed attempt history is
probably better than potentially causing confusion to people who
follow 'next'. But it _is_ a possibility to reset 'next' to
'master'.
And what is the advantage of doing that, exactly?
Not much and that is why I am not sure if that is a good idea,
but one thing is:
$ git log master..next
$ git log --no-merges master..next
would start showing what are still pending in next without
noise.
If you do so, then please tag the branch before resetting it. I think
it contains valuable data that would get lost otherwise.
Nicolas
Hi,
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
I was not sure if that is even a good idea, and I am now
inclined to think that keeping the failed attempt history is
probably better than potentially causing confusion to people who
follow 'next'. But it _is_ a possibility to reset 'next' to
'master'.
And what is the advantage of doing that, exactly?
Not much and that is why I am not sure if that is a good idea,
but one thing is:
$ git log master..next
$ git log --no-merges master..next
would start showing what are still pending in next without
noise.
Of course, you could graft a fake relationship there. Something like
echo $(git rev-parse master master^ next) >> .git/info/grafts
should do. And you can do it _locally_, since all you care about is the
higher-level relationship that _you_ know about. And this is the way to
teach Git about it.
Ciao,
Dscho