Re: Renaming the "master" branch without breaking existing clones
- From
Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 4, 2020, 08:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <90305e1e-c161-42f3-ab3b-92fc423d17c6@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqtuxjva6w.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
On 04-08-2020 00:17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> Of course. Though, having a symbolic ref of 'pu/seen' to 'seen' would >> hopefully not defeat the plan while being a little helpful ;) > > How would that be helpful? After all, I do want to allow us accept > a topic about 'seen' from author 'pu', and that pu/seen branch > should be different from the "not yet ready for 'next' but at least > the maintainer acknowledges that he has seen them" integration > branch whose name is 'seen'. >
I thought 'seen' was blunt for a topic name in the sense that it doesn't convey what the topic does about 'seen'. So, having a symbolic ref of 'pu/seen' to 'seen' might be a good allusion to the fact that 'pu' has been renamed to 'seen' just by looking at the list of remote branches.
-- Sivaraam