The only thing other developers will see is your finished product, which should be a clean. This use of interactive rebasing is a great way to introduce git rebase into your workflow, as it only affects local branches. It loses the timestamps and identity of the commits made on aq, which is also not what I want. The following returns the commit ID of the original base, which you can then pass to git rebase: git merge-base feature main. I feel like I'm missing something - this seems to be something you'd obviously want, and something that's hard to do.Īlso, rebase is NOT equivalent. This: merges aq onto master, fast-forwards that same merge onto aq, undoes it on master, and puts you back on aq again! The full process, ending up with a merge commit showing the changes made on aq (as per the second merge above), but with the merge affecting the aq branch, is: git checkout master (Or, at least, it's often what I want!) But the merge showing the right changes is on the wrong branch! Shows the changes made in aq, which probably is what you want. Git Merge is a command that merges two or more branches together. ![]() While both accomplish the same goal, they do so in different ways and have different use cases. if you look now or later in Github, Bitbucket or your favourite local git history viewer) are the changes made on master, which may well not be what you want. Git Rebase and Git Merge are two common ways to integrate changes from one branch into another. with git reflog & git reset -hard ).Ä«ecause the changes shown in the merge commit (e.g. :-/ ) is that if you wind back n recent changes with git reset -hard HEAD~ and this goes past the merge, then the version below rolls back down the 'wrong' branch, which you have to fix up by hand (e.g. Meanwhile you first do a git checkout of the branch to rebase, to set the first argument. The latter two are usually combined into one argument.So I think its only real disadvantage (apart from being over-complex and non-standard. the identity of the commit to which the first copied commit will be added. I've checked and the approach below also shows exactly the same changes (all the changes made on aq since the original split between aq and master) as the normal approach above, when you finally merge everything back to master. Yes, this simple merge will show that the changes from master were made to aq at that point, not the other way round but that is okay â since that is what did happen! Later on, when you finally merge your branch into master, that is when a merge will finally show all your changes as made to master (which is exactly what you want, and is the commit where people are going to expect to find that info anyway). I've realised that that probably isn't what you want, even if you think it is! git checkout master git merge -no-ff git push origin master.B) Go back on the command line and merge the branch into master. Thats whats supposed to happen: '.rebasing achieves this by re-writing the commit history on the base branch with new commits. on GitHub) and merge it there via the UI. 3 Answers Sorted by: 40 In Visual Studio, do I need to rebase FROM the current branch ( COREv2.0) ONTO master Yes. My answer below documents a way to merge master into aq, where if you view the details of the merge it lists the changes made on aq prior to the merge, not the changes made on master. Now you've got two options: A) Create a PR (e.g.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |