Shawn Pearce wrote: > Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Without -f, it should barf. With -f, we would want the rename >> to happen. In the latter case, I think it should work the same >> way as deleting it and creating it anew, and that would make >> sure that reflog for the old one will be lost and a new log is >> started afresh; otherwise, the log would say old history for >> that branch and it won't be a "rename" anymore. > > This patch doesn't rename the reflog when the branch renames. > Myself and a few other users I support want the reflog preserved > when a branch renames, we all see the reflog as part of the history > of that branch and a rename is the same branch but stored under a > different name... And of course reflog should store the fact of renaming branch. > I had planned to do a rename branch command myself, but its been > lower priority than everything else, so I have just never gotten > around to it. I'm glad to see someone is attempting it! I have thought that command to rename branch was created to deal with simultaneous renaming of reflog + marking rename in reflog. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html