I've worked on teams where the developers all came from a time when companies could afford dedicated staff to deal with branching and merging. That means, if you do not apply it correctly, you could lose committed work and/or break the consistency of other developer's repositories. This is a good way to upset other developers quickly. Rebase destroys the branch and those developers will have broken/inconsistent repositories unless they use git pull -rebase. Is the branch you are getting changes from shared with other developers outside your team (e.g. There are a few factors you should consider when choosing which operation to use. So the short answer is to pick rebase or merge based on what you want your history to look like. Rebase will present conflicts one commit at a time where merge will present them all at once. Merge and rebase will handle conflicts differently.Merge will generally create an extra commit (e.g.The resulting tree structure of the history (generally only noticeable when looking at a commit graph) is different (one will have branches, the other won't).The only differences between a rebase and a merge are: the UI may show a "Merge" button by convention but the button can do any operations with any flags (keywords: merge, rebase, squash, fast-forward). Pull Requests: Popular git servers (Bitbucket, GitLab, GitHub, etc.) allow to configure how pull requests are merged on a per-repo basis. Squashing can be done as part of a merge or rebase operation (-squash flag), in which case it's often called a squash-merge or a squash-rebase. Commits can be combined into a single commits by squashing. Squashing: All commits are preserved in both cases (for example: "add feature", then "typo", then "oops typo again".). You probably want to pull and then rebase to base your changes from the current version from the repository. A second scenario would be if you started doing some development and then another developer made an unrelated change.When you want to bring those changes back to master, you probably want merge. Let's say you have created a branch for the purpose of developing a single feature.Rebase says I want the point at which I branched to move to a new starting point.Merge takes all the changes in one branch and merges them into another branch in one commit.I 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.To squash and reduce my commits as much as possible (but this helps least, as most of the times there is nothing to squash).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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |