Re: Sv: Ping...

[Peter Bloomfield <PeterBloomfield bellsouth net>]

On 10/04/2016 03:05:33 AM Tue, Pawel Salek wrote:
> Den 04.10.2016 01:36:33 skrev Peter Bloomfield:
> > Hi Albrecht:
> >
> > On 10/02/2016 08:22:29 AM Sun, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
> > > ...any opinions/news about these two?  Still anyone interested in them? :-/
> > >
> > > <https://mail.gnome.org/archives/balsa-list/2016-September/msg00013.html>
> > > <https://mail.gnome.org/archives/balsa-list/2016-September/msg00014.html>
> >
> > Yeah, sorry about the lack of activity! Things got kinda crazy on several fronts :-)
> >
> > Both patches look fine, I really will commit shortly.
> >
> > We need to sort out the git structure. The translators only recently got notification that gtk3 is the active 
> > branch, so translation stalled for a long time. It's still confusing to them; see 
> > <URL:https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2016-September/msg00198.html>. I propose that we create a 
> > 2.24 stable branch off master, and then merge gtk3 into master. I've tried it, and it's not pretty, but should be 
> > feasible.
>
> Is http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8762601/how-do-i-rename-my-git-master-branch-to-release of any help?

I tried to find a shortcut, but to keep the commit history it seems we actually need to do the merge. Right 
now I'm trying, in master:

git merge -Xtheirs gtk3

and then to clean up:

git diff gtk3 > ../merge-cleanup.diff

followed by editing ../merge-cleanup.diff so as not to lose some license improvements, and finally patching 
it (in reverse). It gives me a master that is functionally equivalent to the gtk3 branch. Does that seem 
reasonable?

Peter