On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 02:31:12AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Montag, 5. Juli 2010, um 14:10:23 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > > Graham Percival writes:
> > >> Could somebody make release/unstable be exactly the same as master? I
Am Montag, 5. Juli 2010, um 14:10:23 schrieb Graham Percival:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Graham Percival writes:
> >> Could somebody make release/unstable be exactly the same as master? I
> >> don't care if you delete it and make a new one, or do some fancy git
>
Graham Percival 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 st
Am Montag, 5. Juli 2010, 14:10:23 schrieb Graham Percival:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > 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
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
>> Could somebody make release/unstable be exactly the same as master? I
>> don't care if you delete it and make a new one, or do some fancy git
>> thing to move the ref around, or what... I just want to get rid of
Graham Percival writes:
> We had three people working on build stuff this morning, and in the
> mix I decided to use different version numbers when adding \version
> "2.12.0" to files. release/unstable is a mess.
>
> Could somebody make release/unstable be exactly the same as master? I
> don't
