9/12/2023 0 Comments Rebase onto developI am a fresher, and so a reply with a helpful explanation (or link) will be of much help to proceed. So, what is the optimal approach in dealing with rebasing development onto feature branch with least conflicts when the feature branch itself has numerous commits. (but everyone here shouts that using this is totally discouraged) To stash my on going changes, and rebase development and then unstash my changes.git rebase origin/master -i to perform an interactive rebase. git checkout newBranch to get back on your newBranch. git pull origin master to get the most up-to-date version of the master branch. To squash and reduce my commits as much as possible (but this helps least, as most of the times there is nothing to squash) Starting on your newBranch: git checkout master to get back on the master branch.Note, I can't always rebase the development branch immediately since my own work in my branch remains in progress. On rebasing it gives me conflicts for every commit of that branch. The second step is the chicken's neck here. You will have to resolve any such merge failure and run git rebase -continue.Another option is to bypass the commit that caused the merge failure with git rebase -skip.To check out the original and remove the.Continue developing in your feature branch It is possible that a merge failure will prevent this process from being completely automatic.Rebase development branch onto my feature branch.Therefore, Everytime a new feature is published on development, I am asked to: Meanwhile in development branch few other features have been pushed from other developers. Later, on the develop branch, a simple git pull will make sure you're up to date.I have my feature branch which has exceeded around 30 or more commits. This means that I can pull all data down without having to think too much about what branch I'm on, and rebase off the latest code from the remote repository. I personally do this workflow before rebasing: git fetch -all So if you rebase off of develop, there's a chance it will be out of date (older) than origin/develop. For this reason and others, merges freak me out in git. This technically isn't a merge, it will be a "fast forward," meaning git is smart enough to make your local origin branch match origin/develop without actually merging anything. git directory, which you can reference from the branch named "origin/develop".Īfter a fetch, to actually make your local branch origin, you would have to do git merge origin/develop. The newest commits are hidden "behind the scenes" in your local. This will update the branch origin/develop, but not your local branch develop. The first step it does under the hood is fetch all the latest commits from origin, which you can do with git fetch origin However, a git pull actually does two steps, a fetch and a merge. This is mostly commonly done with a pull: $ git status However, you need to explicitly update your local develop branch to get the latest data from origin. For the most part, we consider these two things to always contain the same commits. Your local develop branch is tracking the branch from that remote repository, and there's a local reference to that data called origin/develop. This means we have a "remote" (a repository living somewhere else) arbitrarily named "origin". Url = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* Your local branch develop tracks origin/develop and they might not always have the same commits in them.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |