Re: Git, where zombie branches shamble again

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> You absolutely _did_ rewrite history ... not just once, but twice!
>> You deleted an _entire branch_ of published development history,
>> then after my subsequent push had reinstated it, you deleted it
>> once again!  If that isn't rewriting history, then I'd like to know
>> what you would call it.  [...]

Keith, what Brandon does it *exactly* what is common if you use the
GUI of gitlab, github, and other such sites.

* If you want something added to the repository, you create a PR (push
  request, github terminology) or a MR (merge request, gitlab
  terminology).  This essentially sets up a new, temporary git branch
  that holds your submission.

* You do `git push -f` again and again until this branch is in good
  shape, i.e., the commit messages are OK, the reviewers are
  satisfied, etc., etc.

* Finally, you press the `Merge` button, which merges the branch and
  by default also deletes this temporary git branch – such branches
  are normally not meant to be retained.  Depending on the project,
  this might also squash all commits of the branch into a single
  commit before merging.

The groff git repository (or rather, the Savannah infrastructure)
precedes this 'modern' way of git repository management.  It simply
doesn't support such a GUI approach.

My suggestion is that if you want to have a branch retained (for
whatever reason), you should announce this on this list – and Brandon
should have asked before deleting branches :-)

This is true for all users who have opened a branch for groff!  An
additional means might be if people add a `-dont-remove` suffix or
something similar to the branch name.


    Werner