On 01/20/2017 03:37 AM, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> W dniu 19.01.2017 o 22:42, Junio C Hamano pisze:
>> "David J. Bakeman" <nakuru@comcast.net> writes:
>  
> [...]
>>> Thanks I think that's close but it's a little more complicated I think
>>> :<(  I don't know if this diagram will work but lets try.
>>>
>>> original A->B->C->D->E->F
>>>              \
>>> first branch  b->c->d->e
>>>
>>> new repo e->f->g->h
>>>
>>> Now I need to merge h to F without loosing b through h hopefully.  Yes e
>>> was never merged back to the original repo and it's essentially gone now
>>> so I can't just merge to F or can I?
>> With the picture, I think you mean 'b' is forked from 'B' and the
>> first branch built 3 more commits on top, leading to 'e'.
>>
>> You say "new repo" has 'e' thru 'h', and I take it to mean you
>> started developing on top of the history that leads to 'e' you built
>> in the first branch, and "new repo" has the resulting history that
>> leads to 'h'.
>>
>> Unless you did something exotic and non-standard, commit 'e' in "new
>> repo" would be exactly the same as 'e' sitting on the tip of the
>> "first branch", so the picture would be more like:
>>
>>> original A->B->C->D->E->F
>>>              \
>>> first branch  b->c->d->e
>>>                         \
>>> new repo                 f->g->h
>> no?
> On the other hand Git has you covered even if you did something 
> non-standard, like starting new repo from the _state_ of 'e', that
> is you have just copied files and created new repository, having
> 'e' (or actually 'e*') as an initial commit.
>
>    original A<-B<-C<-D<-E<-F
>                 \
>    first branch  b<-c<-d<-e
>
>    new repo               e*<-f<-g<-h
>
> Note that arrows are in reverse direction, as it is newer commit
> pointing to its parents, not vice versa.
>
> Assuming that you have everything in a single repository, by adding
> both original and new repo as "remotes", you can use 'git replace'
> command to replace 'e*' with 'e'.
>
>    original A<-B<-C<-D<-E<-F
>                 \
>    first branch  b<-c<-d<-e
>                            \
>    new repo                 \-f<-g<-h
>    (with refs/replace)
>
>>     Then merging 'h' into 'F' will pull everything you did since
>> you diverged from the history that leads to 'F', resulting in a
>> history of this shape:
>>
>>> original A->B->C->D->E->F----------M
>>>              \                    /
>>> first branch  b->c->d->e         /
>>>                         \       /
>>> new repo                 f->g->h
> Then you would have the above history in repositories that fetched
> refs/replace/*, and the one below if replacement info is absent:
>
>    original A<-B<-C<-D<-E<-F<-----------M
>                 \                      /
>    first branch  b<-c<-d<-e           /
>                                      /
>    new repo               e*<-f->g->h
>
> But as Junio said it is highly unlikely that you are in this situation.
>
> HTH
OK so what I've done so far is to clone the original then I added
another remote connected to new repo.  Then I did git merge newrepo.  It
did a bunch of stuff that flashed by really fast and then reported a
conflict.  Now if I do a git st there are a bunch of files that seem to
be already added to a commit and all the files with conflicts which it's
says need to be fixed and added.
I'm still learning git even after using it for several years.  I've
never really seen this before.  So the already added files are the ones
that git was able to merge mechanically?  If so can I diff those changes
some way?  Would I have to un add (reset HEAD) all those files to see
the diffs?  Would it have assumed that my changes are to be preferred?

Thanks again for all the great help!