{"thread":{"id":"3528","subject":"Re: impure renames / history tracking","startedAt":"2006-03-02T22:24:35Z","lastAt":"2006-03-02T22:24:35Z","messageCount":1,"participants":["linux@horizon.com"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"17078","messageId":"20060302222435.11534.qmail@science.horizon.com","threadId":"3528","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Re: impure renames / history tracking","fromName":"","fromEmail":"linux@horizon.com","sentAt":"2006-03-02T22:24:35Z","receivedAt":"2006-03-02T22:24:35Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"linux@horizon.com","avatar":null},"body":">> Yes, but imo a poor one, as you're losing all the history.\n>\n> Well, not per se. You might keep the original 'detail' branch. It's a \n> terminal branch obviously, you can't pull master's changes to it once \n> the aggregate patch goes into master. But you can keep it around.\n\nActually, you can!  That's what the \"ours\" merge stratgy is for!\nIt creates a merge whose result is a verbatim copy of the first parent.\n\nThe intended use is for when you've cherry-picked or otherwise manually\nmerged everything interesting from a branch and want to tie up the loose\nend so you can delete the branch name.\n"}]}