Re: Should --update-refs exclude refs pointing to the current HEAD?

> On 17.04.23 10:34, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023, at 10:21, Stefan Haller wrote:
> >> 2. I have a topic branch, and I want to make a copy of it to make some
> >> heavy history rewriting experiments. Again, my interactive rebases would
> >> always rebase both branches in the same way, not what I want. In this
> >> case I could work around it by doing the experiments on the original
> >> branch, creating a tag beforehand that I could reset back to if the
> >> experiments fail. But maybe I do want to keep both branches around for a
> >> while for some reason.
> > 
> > I would use a lightweight tag, too, since this option doesn’t touch tags.[1]
> > 
> > Why do you want to keep both branches around? 
> 
> Several reasons:
> 
> Maybe the original branch was pushed already, and I'm collaborating on
> it with a coworker. At the same time, I want to run my rebase experiment
> in parallel on a copy.
> 
> Maybe I want to create github PRs for both of them, in order to run CI
> on them, or get feedback for both of them from my coworkers.
> 
> Also, it just seems to be the most natural workflow for many people. I
> have seen my coworkers do this a lot without thinking much whether there
> would be a better way.