![]() If there’s a merge conflict, it must be fixed when the commit is applied. But if the specified branch has changed, then rebasing will apply the commits from current branch onto the head of the specified branch (“replaying”).įor this to work, rebase is actually creating brand-new commits with the same changes, but new commit hashes and new timestamps. If the specified branch hasn’t changed, rebasing is a no-op, it does nothing. Git rebase applies the commits from the current branch onto the specified branch. There are a few different merge semantics, which we will explore in the next section. When you merge a branch into another, generally speaking you combine both histories, and fix any conflicts in a merge commit. ![]() ![]() Now your feature branch is trailing master, and you need those bug-fixes ASAP. But it's real strength lies in the fact that it is a distributed model, so I believe that the most ROI can be reaped by using it that way.Say you have a feature branch based on a master branch, and commits have been added to master to fix a bug. One of the great things about git is that it is very flexible and allows for many different kind of workflows. Instead of naming each ref to push, specifies that all refs under However, there may be a better way for you. It prevents your repo from getting all messed up. ![]() They can rebase their changes to be on top of your changes before giving their patches to you. In this case, git push -force isn't too bad, because then they can deal with keeping up with it. Perhaps you are using a different (more gittish) model where you just want people to be able to pull from your repo. IN other words, if others are pulling AND pushing, it's better that you stick with git merge, or AVOID PUSHING until after the rebase (and only rebase your work). Something like this (messy): Description: tree -> rebase -> mywork -> merge -> mywork -> merge -> mywork -> merge -> devwork -> mergeĬommit SHA1: aaaa -> hhhh -> bbbb -> cccc -> dddd -> eeee -> ffff -> gggg -> iiii -> jjjj When he does a merge, then both histories are RELINKED together, and you end up with a mess When the other developer tries to push, he gets a "non-fast forward" message. In the meanwhile, you rebased and forced a push, causing the tree to look like this: Description: tree -> rebase Say another developer pulled down the branch, and they have commits aaaa -> gggg in their branch. If you are using a shared repository, then things like this can get mighty confusing. Now, you know that the same info is in the commits, but git is being responsible by not just overwriting those commits out there (bbbb-gggg in the example above). The issue is that the new commit you are attempting to push out there is NOT a descendant of the commit on the tip of the branch you are pushing to. This is to prevent the history from showing: Description: tree -> mywork -> merge -> mywork -> merge -> mywork -> mergeĬommit SHA1: aaaa -> bbbb -> cccc -> dddd -> eeee -> ffff -> ggggĪfter a rebase, it may look like this (or similar): Description: tree -> rebase When you rebase, git takes the commits in question, and "recommits" them on top of a clean history. A few notes on how git works (non technical):
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |