On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 12:55:38AM -0100, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 08-12-2011 18:46, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:44:33PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> All,
> >> 
> >> this has been mentioned in a couple of threads, so I want to
> >> bring it up in a separate thread so that we can keep the
> >> discussions organized. :-)
> >> 
> >> As you know, catalyst has two branches in its git repository,
> >> master, which was going to be catalyst 3.0, and a branch called
> >> catalyst_2 which is the branch being used by releng for official
> >> releases.
> >> 
> >> We know from what Jorge said that the master branch is broken.
> >> 
> >> Right now, we are commiting changes to both branches, but that is
> >> not a good idea over the long term. We need to figure out if we
> >> should keep master and try to release 3.0 from there at some
> >> point.  If that is what we want to do, we need to go through the
> >> catalyst_2 branch and port relevant commits to master.
> >> 
> >> If we are not interested in the 3.0 code, we should probably find
> >> a way to revert all of it from master with one commit then rebase
> >> the 2.0 branch on master and move it back there.
> > 
> > If no one objects, I will look into doing this next week; the
> > catalyst_2 code should move to master since there doesn't appear to
> > be any work going on for releasing catalyst 3.
> > 
> > Comments?
> 
> William,
> 
> I'd rather not lose the work for catalyst_3. I understand and agree we
> use the catalyst_2 branch for our releases, so I'd rather move master
> to a new branch, call it catalyst_3, experimental or something else,
> and then make catalyst_2 as master.

Hi Jorge,

Ok, no problem, I'll go back to the #git channel tomorrow and
investigate how to do that.

I would prefer to do it without merge commits if possible, but that may
mean a forced update. Are you ok with that?

William