(+cc: Dennis again, Alex) Hi, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Dennis <denny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Now, this can be either really simple or really complicated. My first >> question is: how do I set the repository up in the proper way where I >> could work on all 3 projects separately, with additional possibility of >> working on branch1 only and later committing my changes to branch2 and >> branch3. > > As first step you could create 3 separate git repos in each directory > and add everything to it (git init, git add -A, git commit). Then > rename the branches properly (so instead of "master", they'll be called > "branch1", "branch2", "branch2" or something like that). Create another > (maybe bare) repo elsewhere, add it as remote to the three other ones > and push their branches upwards. So this looks like so: for i in project1 project2 project3 do ( cd "$i" git init git add . git commit ) done git init main cd main for i in project1 project2 project3 do git fetch ../$i master:$i done mv project1 project2 project3 away/ If you would like multiple worktrees (one for each branch, maybe) for the main repo, you might want to look into the new-workdir script in contrib/workdir (but do consider the caveats[1]). >> (Since projects are virtually identical, a fix in one branch >> usually needs to be propagated to other branches) > > In your case, cherry-pick might be the right for you. e.g., when project3 gets a new fix: git checkout project1 git cherry-pick project3 > You could also do a little bit refactoring, making a 4th branch which > the other 3 are then rebased onto. Right, what is the actual relationship between these projects? Do they actually represent branches in the history of a single project? Suppose project1 is historically an ancestor to project2, project3, and project4, which are independent. (Maybe project1 is the initial version and projects 2,3,4 are ports to other platforms.) You could take this into account when initially setting up the branches, like this: git init main cd main GIT_DIR=$(pwd)/.git; export GIT_DIR GIT_WORK_TREE=../project1 git add . GIT_WORK_TREE=../project1 git commit git branch -m project1 for i in project2 project3 project4 do git checkout -b $i project1 GIT_WORK_TREE=../$i git add -A GIT_WORK_TREE=../$i git commit done (and use gitk --all when done to make sure everything looks right) Alternatively, you can rearrange the history afterwards: $ git cat-file commit project2 | tee project2 tree 76db51024713f6ef191928a8445d48d39ab55434 author Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 1289324716 -0800 committer Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 1289324716 -0800 project2: an excellent project $ git rev-parse project1 $ vi project2 ... add a "parent <object id>" line after the tree line, where <object id> is the full object name rev-parse printed ... $ git hash-object -t commit -w project2 $ git branch -f branch2 <the object name hash-object prints> ... repeat for project3 and project4 ... $ gitk --all; # to make sure everything looks right This is less convenient than it ought to be. It would be nice to add a "git graft" command to automate this procedure, which - interacts well with "git replace" - doesn't interact poorly with "git fetch" like .git/info/grafts does - could be more convenient to use than .git/info/grafts. As the gitworkflows man page mentions, if you make your fixes on the oldest branch they apply to (project1) and then merge to all later branches, then the fixes will propagate forward correctly. See the "Graduation" and "Merging upwards" sections of gitworkflows for details. >> My second question is that each branch has a huge folder with image data. >> By huge I mean 1 to 4Gb, depending on the branch. Since images are not >> directly relevant to the development work, is there a way to not include >> those folders in git? I would suggest tracking a symlink to another repository (or to a directory tracked through other means, like unison). Hope that helps, Jonathan [1] If you have two worktrees for the same project with the same branch checked out at a given moment, the results can be confusing (changes made in one worktree will look like they have been commited and undone in the other). The "detached HEAD" feature (which git-checkout.1 explains) and multiple worktrees do not interact so well: the need to preserve commits while no branch was checked out in one worktree will not be taken into account when "git gc" runs (explicitly or implicitly!) on the other. This can be very disconcerting. -- 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