threads / discuss / 43219

Merging in commits from a non-common ancestors

Subject: Merging in commits from a non-common ancestors

## tl;dr

2 messages between Nov 21, 2006 and Nov 21, 2006.

replies: 1people: 2as markdown or json

Alex Bennee· Nov 21, 2006, 15:28 UTC · lore

Hi,

I've been experimenting with using git alongside our CVS to manage my own development. In an ideal world I would have a full git tree with all the baselines tagged in it so merging is painless. However for the time being I have written a script to import a cvs tag into a git tree (that ignores the CVS gubbins). However one of the things I want to achieve is the ability to easily move hacks/patches from one tree to another.

The problem is that these tree's don't have common ancestor's in the git tree as I haven't imported all our baselines. However the individual commits should apply, I'm just not sure how to tell git to apply the commits as patches rather than try and work out the full differences between the two trees. Of course I'd like git to keep the commit messages.

Am I missing something blindingly obvious?

-- 
Alex, homepage: http://www.bennee.com/~alex/
In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. --
Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Jakub Narebski· Nov 21, 2006, 15:41 UTC · re: Alex Bennee · lore

Re: Merging in commits from a non-common ancestors

Alex Bennee wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> I've been experimenting with using git alongside our CVS to manage my
> own development. In an ideal world I would have a full git tree with all
> the baselines tagged in it so merging is painless. However for the time
> being I have written a script to import a cvs tag into a git tree (that
> ignores the CVS gubbins). However one of the things I want to achieve is
> the ability to easily move hacks/patches from one tree to another.
> 
> The problem is that these tree's don't have common ancestor's in the git
> tree as I haven't imported all our baselines. However the individual
> commits should apply, I'm just not sure how to tell git to apply the
> commits as patches rather than try and work out the full differences
> between the two trees. Of course I'd like git to keep the commit
> messages.

git cherry-pick. It uses patching instead of merging.

Or git-format-patch plus git-am.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git