Thanks, Joe.

The idea is interesting but imagine then what repository would look
like:

At least 3 shared branches. Developing code always in branches and
never come back to the master.

On Sep 13, 5:43 pm, Joe Hassick <ehass...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This might not be the *best* way to approach this, but what if you one repo 
> with 3 unique branches: A, B, C; then two other branches, i.e.: AB, BC.
>
> You would then do work in the unique branches and pull changes from them into 
> the combined ones when needed.
>
> Again, this might not be ideal, but it's an idea.  Hope that made sense.
>
> Joe
>
> On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:09 PM, ksamdev <ksam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I have code that can be split into 3 parts: A, B and C.
>
> > In fact, I can only have: A+B or B+C combinations in the same folder.
>
> > What is the best technique to organize such code using GIT?
>
> > Originally, I was thinking about separate repositories for each part
> > and then combine everything with either Submodules, Superporjects or
> > even subtree merge. Unfortunately above solutions seem to be quite
> > complicated.
>
> > Any alternatives?
>
> > sincerely, Sam.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> > "Git for human beings" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to git-us...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> > git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group 
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git 
for human beings" group.
To post to this group, send email to git-us...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.

Reply via email to