Restart 0.5 branch? about chrono

[djc]

What is the problem with the 100-commit difference? Why are you having trouble making sense of the history?

[pitdicker]

Why are you having trouble making sense of the history?

I don't care all that much about git history. But it is pretty much impossible to tell from the history that the changes I listed above are all there is to it.
And I came to that list by diffing the directories.

[djc]

I do care about git history -- this lets us do git blame and link from a commit to a PR to see the discussion associated with a change, the motivation, etc. Maybe a better way to look at the changes is by looking at PRs that targeted the main branch after the 0.4.x branch was made leading? I think the constituency for this request is probably 1 -- you're the only person who needs this knowledge (because I already knew) and you now have it.

[pitdicker]

For reverence to filter PRs by target branch: is:pr is:merged base:main
That is a useful trick 👍. It leaves only 53 PRs to look through, of which only 4 have not made it to 0.4.x.

I already knew the difference quite well. Did you know this was all that has happened until know for 0.5?
I have compared the difference between 0.4.x and main a bunch of times after making a merge PR, just for fun.

I do care about git history -- this lets us do git blame and link from a commit to a PR to see the discussion associated with a change, the motivation, etc.

There is a trade-off between having a readable git history (git blame works either way), and having an easy link to to the associated GitHub PR. And I have to admit that part is useful.

[djc]

IMO "release" branch history should never be changed -- it can also be very confusing for other people who have a local clone.

[pitdicker]

Yes, that is a good rule.