greened@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (David A. Greene) writes: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> I'm happy to do either (rebase or filter-branch). Just let me know. >> >> I would understand Avery's "should we filter-branch/rebase, or is it OK >> as-is?", but I do not understand what you mean by "either rebase or >> filter-branch is fine". > > Sorry, got mixed up there. I'm not that familiar with filter-branch. > Now I understand you do both. :) > > So have we decided to keep the history? I think the discussion so far was: - Peff suggested to keep the history with a true merge; - I said the history before the final commit in Avery's tree did not look so useful for future archaeology; and then - Avery corrected me that there are contributions by other people and the credits will be lost if we discarded the history; and everybody (including me) now favors to have the history. So the answer to your question is yes, but I do not think we heard opinion from anybody regarding the question by Avery yet. I personally do not see how it would help us if the old history is rewritten at this point. -- 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