Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > But I do think a "branch renaming" helper like this might be useful for > projects undergoing this rename. I don't think it makes sense to have as > a first-class Git command, but I wouldn't be opposed to carrying > something like it in contrib/ if somebody wanted to polish it up. Absolutely. I think we three are on the same page now ;-) cf. <20200803163958.GD50799@xxxxxxx> cf. <xmqqlfivwvtw.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Now one issue I am not so sure about is if the only thing that needs adjusting is branch.*.remote + branch.*.merge. The open-ended nature of our design means it is _possible_ to be reasonably sure to have covered everything we do in the core part of Git, but it is certain for us to miss third-party enhancements. An inevitable "why not do all that when 'git branch -r -m old new' is given?" posed by those who are not aware of the design needs to be shot down, which is unfortunate.
