Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> 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 _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
