Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yes, I think that's a worthwhile thing to log. Problem is the logging system tends to throw away pointless entries (sha1 -> same sha1) so the rename log entry needs to be forced somehow... Although without a UI to show the content of the reflog having the rename entry in there isn't all that critical. > > 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. Yes, that's one of the complex parts of it. :-) -- Shawn. - 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