Re: I screw up git release/unstable

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

>> There are basically two ways to do that.  One is more or less a relabel
>> and would consequentially lose history.
>
> If it loses history from release/unstable, I consider that a desirable
> side effect.
>
>>  The other is a trivial merge
>> with master with a merge strategy that lets master win always.  The
>> latter should make it easier for people to pull, I think.
>
> AFAIK I'm the only one who uses release/unstable, so that's not a huge 
> concern.
>
> Do whichever is easiest/safest for you, please.

I am afraid that I _kept_ the history (though trying to get rid of it).
Which likely means that merging with anything having commits that you
had in release/unstable will not include those commits "again".

Sorry, I am not sure that this is the best.  One rather reliable way to
lose history should be to delete and recreate the branch, something like

git push origin :release/unstable
git push origin master:release/unstable

If it is just you using the branch, it should likely work, but not
really be helpful in the way of archiving the release/unstable history.

-- 
David Kastrup