Sv: Sv: Ping...

[Pawel Salek <pawsa0 gmail com>]

Den 04.10.2016 21:15:18 skrev Peter Bloomfield:
> 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?

It feels somewhat manual but it seems like a safe way to go. I keep my  
fingers crossed!

Pawel