Well, that's the kind of pearls git contains and I still have to
discover.
Thanks.
On Sep 7, 4:45 am, David Aguilar dav...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/6/10, Mark Kharitonov mark.kharito...@gmail.com wrote:
@Rouleau: Thanks for the reply.
Nope. I have two SVN repositories, where:
- the first
Well, that's the kind of pearls git contains and I still have to
discover.
Thanks.
On Sep 7, 4:45 am, David Aguilar dav...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/6/10, Mark Kharitonov mark.kharito...@gmail.com wrote:
@Rouleau: Thanks for the reply.
Nope. I have two SVN repositories, where:
- the first
On 9/6/10, Mark Kharitonov mark.kharito...@gmail.com wrote:
@Rouleau: Thanks for the reply.
Nope. I have two SVN repositories, where:
- the first repository is the repository before the old VCS crashed.
- the second repository contains all the dev code since the crash with
the history
@Rouleau: Thanks for the reply.
Nope. I have two SVN repositories, where:
- the first repository is the repository before the old VCS crashed.
- the second repository contains all the dev code since the crash with
the history starting from the crash day onwards.
I wish to have a single GIT
Ok, when I said you had two branches, I want to mean we can look at
your two SVN repositories as two separate branches. My mistake.
If you do not want the crash to be visible in the history, you can try
to replace the step 6 with a rebase on the mergeCrash's postCrash
branch, followed by the
