Re: scratch/igc as a feature branch [was: Re: igc: trying to chase a crash]

[Pip Cet]

"Stefan Kangas" <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>>> From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org>
>>>> Cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com,  yandros@gmail.com,  ofv@wanadoo.es,
>>>>   emacs-devel@gnu.org,  pipcet@protonmail.com
>>>> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 05:56:29 -0500
>>>>
>>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > The question is indeed what kind of trouble this could cause.  If it
>>>> > loses the history, I wouldn't do it, since the fact that it's under
>>>> > scratch/ is not a catastrophe, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, my idea would be to just push the current head of scratch/icg to
>>>> feature/igc (and remove the first), so no history would be lost.
>>>
>>> If that works (I never did anything like that, so don't know what Git
>>> does), then I don't mind.
>>
>> One can also rename branches, BTW.
>>
>>>
>>> If we do this, it would be good to post a message here telling people
>>> how to switch to the renamed branch, even if that is trivial.
>>
>> Shouldn't we wait for Pip to say something?
>
> Ping!  Pip, what do you think of renaming the scratch/igc branch to
> feature/igc?  We would keep the branch exactly as it is now, but just
> rename it (morally equivalent to "git branch -m feature/igc").

Sounds good to me.  We'd still need to worry about git history at some
point before merging the branch to master, I guess?  No reason to do so
now, though.

> If we agree that it makes sense, I think we should move forward with
> this.  Thanks.

Thanks for continuing to work on this!

Pip