On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:57:16 PM UTC+2, Michael Gersten wrote:
>
> If so, I think that either doing merges from master to A and B, or
> rebasing the few commits of A and B to the tip of master as you go, is the
> right answer.
>
I would think so as well. Alternatively, if common changes are not ready
for master yet, additional branch should be branched off of common ancestor
of branches A and B (commit D in the example above), holding only the
changes that should go to both branches A and B, merging this "common"
branch into both of them as needed:
(*1*) branch A: E---H-----MI'-MJ'-MK'---M
/ / / /
master: A---B---C---D / / /
|\ / / /
common: \ \-----I---J---K
\ \ \ \
branch B: F---G---MI"-MJ"-MK"---L
Do note that you can merge each "common" branch commit into the desired
branch separately as soon as they`re made (as shown above), if you need
them right away, but you can also just merge the last one, too, having the
same effect. In terms of the final result, this is equivalent to (1):
(*2*) branch A: E---H-------------MK'---M
/ /
master: A---B---C---D /
|\ /
common: \ \-----I---J---K
\ \
branch B: F---G-----------MK"---L
In both case (1) and (2), disregarding the merge commits, branches will
hold changes as desired:
(*3*) branch A: A, B, C, D, *E*, *H*, I, J, K, *M*
branch B: A, B, C, D, *F*, *G*, I, J, K, *L*
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:56:52 PM UTC+2, matevz...@borea.si wrote:
>
> At any point in the future I would like to use regular "git merge A" and
> "git merge B" to sync and B without loosing E,H and F,G respectively.
>
`git merge` is used to join histories, simplified - incorporate _all_ new
commits from one branch into the other. And this is not what you actually
want, as you say you don`t want some commits from branch A inside branch B,
and vice versa... so don`t merge them.
It makes sense to have one branch merging into the other (and not vice
versa), where the branch we`re merging into will keep its own commits and
get all the commits from the branch we`re merging from. The branch we`re
merging from stays as it is, not influenced by commits existing only on the
branch we were merging into.
But as soon as we merge the branches the other way around, too, anything
else than branches being the same (holding the same commits), while
possible to accomplish, may be rather confusing and greatly complicate our
life down the road. As having branches the same is not desired in your
case, you shouldn`t be merging them.
Regards,
Buga
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git
for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
