![]() ![]() First, it eliminates the unnecessary merge commits required by git merge. The major benefit of rebasing is that you get a much cleaner project history. But, instead of using a merge commit, rebasing re-writes the project history by creating brand new commits for each commit in the original branch. This moves the entire feature branch to begin on the tip of the main branch, effectively incorporating all of the new commits in main. The easiest option is to merge the main branch into the feature branch using something like the following: ![]() To incorporate the new commits into your feature branch, you have two options: merging or rebasing. Now, let’s say that the new commits in main are relevant to the feature that you’re working on. This results in a forked history, which should be familiar to anyone who has used Git as a collaboration tool. ![]() ![]() Both of these commands are designed to integrate changes from one branch into another branch-they just do it in very different ways.Ĭonsider what happens when you start working on a new feature in a dedicated branch, then another team member updates the main branch with new commits. The first thing to understand about git rebase is that it solves the same problem as git merge. In this article, we’ll compare git rebase with the related git merge command and identify all of the potential opportunities to incorporate rebasing into the typical Git workflow. Then it resets the current branch ( my-bug-fix-develop) to point to develop (the branch I am rebasing onto), and then it plays all those commits ( d through h) on top of that.The git rebase command has a reputation for being magical Git hocus pocus that beginners should stay away from, but it can actually make life much easier for a development team when used with care. So that will include d through h since I specified to start at d^. Then it gets all the diffs from each of the commits on my-bug-fix-develop. It finds the common ancestor of my-bug-fix-develop and develop, which is a. Here's what I think is happening and I'd like to know if I am right or just way off-base. Why is it that setting the starting point of the new branch to h makes this work? If I branch without specifying h, and I tried to do git rebase -onto develop d^, I get some other changes that don't even come from the bugfix. I guess my main question is the significance of git checkout -b my-bug-fix-for-develop h. Now when we do git rebase -onto develop d^, is git setting the HEAD of my-bug-fix-develop to point to b (i.e., the commit where develop starts) first, and then replaying all commits from d until h? When we create my-bug-fix-develop, we end up with this: What I don't understand, is how this plays out actually, and I'd like to since I don't like to run commands blindly without actually understanding what's going on. Then we rebase using develop as the new base, starting from the parent commit of d (so that will include d as well`). We create a new branch that is pointing to commit h. I understand on an abstract level what is happening here. So I found out that you can basically do this: git checkout -b my-bug-fix-for-develop h I cannot do a straight merge because I don't want to bring in c. Now I want to take commits b through f and move those fixes into develop. I merged this back into release, so I basically have this: Off release, I branched a separate branch called my-bug-fix. I have three branches: master, develop, and release. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |