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.
