On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:22:47 +0100 David Soria Parra <sn_@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Here's another way that is perhaps a little cleaner: > > > > $ git remote add -f B /path/to/B > > $ git merge -s ours --no-commit B/master > > $ git read-tree --prefix=sub/ -u B/master > > $ git commit -m "subtree merged B" > > that works perfectly but it doesn't preserve the history, does it? David, Yes, the reason to start with the "--no-commit" merge is so that the history is properly connected once you do the final commit step. However, I should have noted in my original message that none of the steps actually use the subtree merge. Instead they simply prepare a repository such that future merging can be done with: $ git merge -s subtree B/master. Cheers, Sean - 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
