Hi Mark,
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:48:25 AM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> Yes, your simplification expresses what I was trying to achieve.
>
Good, then we understood each other, thanks for confirming :)
> I specifically merged from master to one so that one could be tested with
> the
Yes, your simplification expresses what I was trying to achieve.
I specifically merged from master to one so that one could be tested with
the merge from master. The subsequent merge from one to master was to have
master include a commit which shows one merged into it. Same pattern for
master
Hi JNickVA,
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 8:44:13 PM UTC+2, JNickVA wrote:
> 3. and 4. I don't even have enough information to know the state of the
> master when each of the 2 branches were created
>
What do you mean here? Isn`t Git history showing you the exact state of
"master" when each
Hi Mark,
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:58:21 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> You might consider a series of steps to perform the merge. Some of the
> steps might include:
>
>1. Merge from master to branch one so that the diffs between branch
>one and master are only changes on branch
Michael,
1. At this stage I am not sure that what is in production is represented by
the master branch, and if it was at one time, when that might have been.
2. I am taking over the project from a group of developers who have been
working remotely with little ort no supervision. I have 2 weeks
