Michael J Gruber <git <at> drmicha.warpmail.net> writes: > > This strikes me as not too bad of a procedure, as long as there is a graceful > > way of determining the most recent common ancestor of br1 and master. What's > > the simplest way of doing that? > > > > That would be simply git merge-base master br1. > > BUT: The main problem here is that git is not file based, but > revision/commit/tree based. In the above, you're basically losing all > the history common_ancestor_commit..br1 which produced br1's version of > f1 and f2, in the sense that a git log master will not show that part of > the history at all. Well put, I agree. One of the main arguments I am going to use to try to convince my fellows to switch from perforce to git is the usefulness of git blame. I would be defeating that with my procedure. > > If it makes sense to change f1 and f2 without changing f3 that probably > means that the pertinent commit should have been split. Is it an option > for you to rewrite br1's history? That would be the most gittish solution. Yes, I like the idea of rewriting br1's history. So, given that f1, f2, ..., fn were changed together in one commit X on br1, I want to break f1 and f2 out of X and put them into X', then leave the rest of the f3,...,fn changes in Y'. Let's say X was the last commit on br1. What would the commands to do that look like? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html