![]() An "unpublished" branch is one that I'm using to organize my changes into one or more commits, and haven't shared with other developers yet. A "published" branch is one that other developers might have done work on, and would reasonably expect not to change. Some additional color: When I decide whether a rebase is appropriate, I often think about whether I consider the branch to have been "published". This is not terrible if it's your own branch and no one is collaborating on it with you, but it can become problematic if multiple developers are contributing to the same branch - in particular because their commits may not cleanly push if you've rewritten the history.Īs you can see, the history might be a little less complex when you rebase your branch, and some people prefer it for this reason. In your particular case, this did not happen and git could take care of everything. Merging could have resulted in conflicts, which would then need to be resolved manually. The automatically generated commit signifies that. If you're working with other people, see (2).Įvery time you run a rebase, you are effectively re-writing the history of that branch. When you did a git-pull, modifications from the remote branch were merged into your local branch. With a rebase, you're re-writing history, so you'll have to force-push your feature branch. git history after the branch is merged with master and deleted?.ask other colleagues to update their local branches with git. if you get conflicts fix them, stage them ( git add ), and do git rebase continue. git history while working on the branch? Make sure everyone has pushed their commits to remote, then start rebasing after getting all changes from other colleagues via git pull & git rebase origin/master.the process of syncing master to feature?.Also, git merge is simple and takes less time to master. Merge command adds your changes with a commit without making any changes to the history whereas rebase is known to apply feature branch changes on top of the master branch and thus rewrites the history. How does rebase vs merge in this scenario affect. But they have their own way of achieving this common target. Si el rebase es exitoso, entonces necesitas forzar el push de tus cambios con git push -f para agregar la versin con rebase a tu repositorio remoto. This is essentially taking a snapshot of master and putting those changes into my branch. Cuando se detiene a rebase, haz los ajustes necesarios, y luego usa git rebase -continue hasta que el rebase sea exitoso. The rebase of master into the feature branch is much cleaner and adds adds the changes I have made in the feature branch on top of the head of master. git merge Normally, I merge master into my feature branch as I am working on it. (note, I'm not worrying about merging feature back into master the focus here is the workflow of keeping feature synced with master) This is essentially taking a snapshot of master and putting those changes into my branch. Normally, I merge master into my feature branch as I am working on it. With that in mind, does it matter if I use rebase or merge when I am merging master into my feature branch? This keeps a clean git history on master which allows you to easily see the work that was done in a merge. According to Atlassian's merge strategy, it is best to merge feature branches back into master with the -no-ff option.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |