From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Reference for git.git release process Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:41:10 -0700 Message-ID: <7vocvpw4q1.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <49CA78BF.2020101@fastmail.fm> <7viqlxz9go.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <49CAAA16.1080401@fastmail.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Raman Gupta X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 26 00:43:14 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Lmckb-0007F9-Uw for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:43:14 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753805AbZCYXlU (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753667AbZCYXlU (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:20 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:45914 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751943AbZCYXlT (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8755A5F52; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0061A5F50; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:12 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <49CAAA16.1080401@fastmail.fm> (Raman Gupta's message of "Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:03:02 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6E894092-1996-11DE-8E8F-32B0EBB1AA3C-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Raman Gupta writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> That is more-or-less correct, even though I'd actually do either >> >> git branch -f next master >> >> or >> >> git checkout next >> git reset --hard master >> >> instead of deleting and recreating. > > Is that a stylistic preference or does your approach have some > advantage over the delete/create? Doesn't git branch -f internally > delete and re-create? No, yes, and no. The last answer "no" relates to the fact that the preservation of the reflog and per-branch configuration for "next", which is the reason behind the second answer "yes". > ... The only > concern I had with this workflow was the difficult to understand > visualization of the history. So to repeat my earlier question: Are > there some canned gitk invocations, or other tips/tricks/approaches,... I do not share the difficulty, and there is no answer from me to your "earlier" question. Perhaps other people have some tips.