In this case, git tree can look like this: It’s very hard to reproduce the way of thinking or the implementation steps for a specific feature. After combining all changes, one of your commits is on top of the git tree and one somewhere in a middle. In the meantime, your team did other tasks. Everything is working, so you decide to merge those changes with the master branch. In the second commit, you add communication with the backend. Imagine that you need to implement login functionality. In some cases it’s a good solution, but not here. But, what you could notice too, is that the changes are in a very strange order. Your branch is merged with the main branch. This will allow you to combine your changes with the main branch. Normally, when you start working with branches, you will just use git merge command. This is the third article in the git series, so if you want to know more about basics of git usage, go to my previous articles. This is very useful especially when you work in a team. It will allow you to have a better structure and order of your commits. Today, I have a very nice git feature for you. This is normal that you do small steps and discover new features on the way. Just try it next time your upstream rebases something on you.When you are starting your adventure with git, it’s hard to know everything from the beginning. That might sound a little complicated, but it works out fine. As soon as it finds one, it picks it as the starting point for the rebase ( e in the example above). , and so on) it checks if that commit is an ancestor of the current branch head foo. This reflog represents the tips of successive git fetch operations on origin, in “most recent first” order.įor each reflog entry, ( then. To do this, it looks at the reflog of the remote tracking branch ( origin/foo, in this case). The command tries to find out which commits are really your local ones, and which had come from upstream in an earlier fetch. You may still get conflicts, but they will be genuine conflicts (between p/q/r and a/b+c/d+e/f), and not conflicts caused by b/c conflicting with b+c, etc. What git pull -rebase does, in this case, is: git fetch origin Even a git fetch git rebase origin/foo would not cut it, because commits “b” and “c” on one side, and commit “b+c” on the other, would conflict. His commit chain now looks like this: a-b+c-d+e-f (origin/foo)Ī git pull at this point would result in chaos. Meanwhile, in a fit of anti-social rage, the upstream maintainer has not only rebased his “foo”, he even used a squash or two. Time passes, and you have made some commits on top of your own “foo”: a-b-c-d-e-p-q-r (foo) Let’s say your starting point is this: a-b-c-d-e (origin/foo) (also your local "foo") Here’s an explanation of what it does and how. Which means git pull -rebase has to do a little bit more than that. Without going into why they would do that, and how many beers (I prefer rum+coke, thank you!) should be offered in compensation to downstream users, let’s just try and describe how git helps you deal with it.Ī normal git pull is, loosely speaking, something like this (we’ll use a remote called origin and a branch called foo in all these examples): # assume current checked out branch is "foo"Īt first glance, you might think that a git pull -rebase does just this: git fetch originīut that will not help if the upstream rebase involved any “squashing” (meaning that the patch-ids of the commits changed, not just their order). This can be a big problem – causing messy conflicts for us if we’re downstream. Sometimes we have an upstream that rebased/rewound a branch we’re depending on. Gitolite documentation has another /gitolite in the URL, so "" and so ALL my git related stuff gets carried over. That's just an artifact of "" being translated to Although this page has a "" URL, this is not about gitolite.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |