Git rebase12/5/2023 Using index info to reconstruct a base tree. Result: Bahadirs-iMac:new-repo bahadir$ git rebase masterįirst, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it. (This is to save the current branch, as rebase modifies the branch we are on permanently) git checkout feature-branch Maintainer simply does a fast-forward to get the feature and sees a natural progression of commits in the main branch.įeature developer does: git checkout -b backup Option 3: Feature developer rebases, maintainer pulls the rebase as a simple "fast-forward": The maintainer now can merge the change, but he will have to merge a “merge commit”. On the side branch, he will get a conflict, and will create a merge commit. Option 2: Feature developer merges, resolves conflict, Maintainer pulls merge commit:ġ. No maintainer wants to resolve conflict of others. Merge options now: Option 1: Maintainer pulls, merges, resolves conflict: Let us look at the scenario where re-winding and re-applying all commits in a feature branch causes a conflict with the main branch. Why do people avoid rebasing? Because: They don’t know how to resolve conflicts.Ī merge conflict occurs when commits in two git branches modify the same contents in the same file, and there is no clear evidence which change is the right one to pick. Let’s assume you have a series of commits on a feature branch: The main branch maintainer pulls the changes in the side branch as a fast-forward. The feature developer rebases their changes on top of the master branchĢ. If you do merge commits on a regular basis your commit history will be hard to follow. Commits may not be in a coherent, sequential order. The commit history will have a mixed order of commits from the original branch and the merged branch. The merge commit does some background merge magic in your files, meaning you will find them in a different state than you left before the merge. It creates an extra merge commit in the commit history. The problem is merge commits will complicate your main branch commit history: When you develop a feature in a side branch, you need to get your changes merged into the main branch. If you don’t know what a merge or fast-forward is, check out this tutorial first. And if you want to learn about a few more complicated use cases read this article.Problem: Merge commits will complicate your git history. Next time you rebase, remember that rebase -onto can be a better option. In our case, as we want just a single commit from the fix branch we need to change the base of this commit, which is HEAD~ with a new base, which is master.Īnother option would be to use interactive rebase and manually remove commits that we don't need, but similarly to cherry-picking this can be a lot of error-prone work if our release branch contains a lot of other commits. We can see that the difference between git rebase and git rebase -onto is that the former changes the base of a whole branch, meaning that it will find at what point current branch diverged from the target branch and will replay all the commits from this point on the new target branch, when the later changes the base of a commit by replacing its old base with a new base. | * Merge branch 'fix' into release (release) $ git log -graph -oneline -all -pretty=format:'%s%d' Let's see how it is different from more commonly used git rebase.įirst, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it. That's when I've learned about git rebase -onto from Michael Brown. This works but cherry-picking more than a few commits one by one (or even using range of commits) seems like an extra and error-prone work. We would need to create a new branch based on the head of the target branch (or reset branch with a fix to reuse it), cherry-pick required commits to it and only then push and create a PR. As our trunk and release branches are configured as protected on GitHub, we can't just cherry-pick fixes and push them to the target branch. We figured there are two pretty-much similar options: either we cherry-pick commits from trunk to release branch or we cherry-pick from release branch to trunk. Recently we were discussing in our team how to approach having fixes for bugs discovered during release both in release and the trunk branch to ensure we don't have to deal with large merges and possible conflicts in the release branch when we are done with a release and immediately benefit from those fixes on the trunk while we keep working on it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |