On May 28, 9:15 am, Stefan Szabo <stefszabos...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "I could actively tell git that two trees are the same."
> I'll keep my eyes open for an answer to this one on this list, as this
> interests me as much as it does you. This is key for your problem.

Actually, it seems to be quite easy to "fake"(?) that locally by
writing a .git/info/grafts file
[From there, it seems, you could rewrite history with filter-branch to
weld together those branches permanently. I don't want this so I did
not look into this very deeply.]

That would almost be what I need. Except that one of my branches
includes files of what is a submodule in the other branch :-(


> But I can tell you this much: over here, where I'm working, we cloned
> entire reposes -- history and all -- so that we could easily pull from each
> other when needed, without worrying about differing histories.

Of course! That is the way git is supposed to work ;-)
But in my case, history includes private objects that must not be
shared. So I need two different histories ...

> I'm not sure you can do that at all in git, i.e. branch from no commit.

Yes you can: 
http://madduck.net/blog/2007.07.11:creating-a-git-branch-without-ancestry/
Alternatively, you could add an empty remote an clone an empty branch
from there ;)

-- 
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-users@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