It's not worth it, and it is ultimately a lie.īest practices typically spread quickly and early when they make sense and particularly when they are trivial to achieve. To sum up, don't subvert git just because you want to see a straight line in your commit graph. With a rebase, those intermittent commits are almost useless, as the repo doesn't look like it did when they made that commit. Also, with multi-commit branches, you can see what the repo looked like after each commit. The context in which the developer was working has been lost. You can go to the merge just before the developer's first commit and see what the repo actually looked like when they started work. Reconstructing what a developer did 4 months ago is much simpler with a merge vs a rebase. I've run teams that have used git how you are describing, always making people use rebase (in this case it was because we were syncing to SVN). If you really want a straight-line for your repos, why aren't you using something like SVN? Is the distributed nature of git really the big selling factor? Yes, your repo looks messier, but it more accurately reflects the lifecycle of the code, and what the developer intended at each commit. Git rebase destroys the context of the commit, leaving basically a diff apply instead of the much more contextually rich merge commit. This doesn't show up on a smaller repo, but if you have a busy repo, with lots of contributers, untangling a mess becomes much harder if you no longer have the true parentage of a given commit. The problem with rebase is that it corrupts the true history of the commits. Rebasing local history is OK (it's more than OK, it's sometimes necessary to maintain a clean history), but changing other people commits history is considered a bad practice. I DO NOT encourage rebasing remote (public or shared) branches. NOTE: Because of many discussions about this note. To get to the next batch of conflicts (if you have any). If you want to merge a feature branch it might be wiser to actually merge your commits thus having a single point of integration of two distinct branches.Īlso the conflict resolving will be now per commit basis, not everything-at-once, so you will have to use git rebase -continue The command will apply all your yet-to-be-pushed commits on top of the remote tree commits allowing your commits to be straight in a row and without branches (easier git bisects, yay!).įew notes though. To keep the repository clean, your commits always on top of the tree until you push them to a remote server. You actually issuing git fetch + git merge commands, which will result with an extra commit and ugly merge bubbles in your commit log (check out gitk to see them). What you might not know is that by typing git pull Tip: Learn more about merge & rebase in our learn section.When working on a project you usually synchronize your code by pulling it several times a day. You will be prompted with a dialog where you can select the revision to rebase onto. Simply select a range of commits, right-click and choose the “Rebase X revisions onto…” action. rebase -onto allows you to be much more precise.įor maximum flexibility, Tower also offers to use the rebase onto option with specific commits. In short, rebase -onto allows you to "switch the base" for a series of commits.Ī common, practical use case for this is when you want to switch the base of a feature branch to a different branch:Ī normal rebase wouldn't work for this scenario. The "Rebase" command is well known in Git, but not its -onto option, which can be immensely helpful. To rebase your HEAD branch onto another branch, you can do the following: No merge commit will be created, but commits will have new SHA1-IDs.Īs a golden rule you should never rebase commits that have already been published on a remote repository (pushed). Thereby, history is rewritten: It will appear as if the commits had been made consecutively on the same branch, not on a different branch. When doing a rebase, Git takes all the commits from one branch and reapplies them (like patches) on the other branch one after the other. To merge changes from another branch into your current HEAD, you can do the following: The most common method to integrate one branch into another is to perform a „merge“. The other branch will not be modified by the operation in any way. Check out the branch that should receive the changes.In case any local changes are present, use Git's Stash to temporarily save them away. Before You Integrate.īefore starting a merge or rebase, you should check a couple of things: Integrating changes from one branch into another can be done via merge or rebase.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |