![]() ![]() Conflicts become messy! Rebase early and often. Regularly fetch and rebase your local branches to stay up-to-date with the main branch.Rebase changes the commit history, and others will not know about it. Do not rebase branches others are working on. While git rebase undoubtedly keeps your commit history cleaner, there are a few things to be mindful of: I only need to know where I started (commit hash 2a2db46). Very nice! It’s cleaner, and looking at my branch history, it’s pretty straightforward to reason about the changes on my branch. In comparison to the earlier example, what does this look like with the same commits “some other thing”, “adding test”, and “addressing comments”? Cleaner commit history with git rebase Use git rebase main, this will complete the rebase, replaying your commits on top of the HEAD of main.Switch back to your branch foo with git checkout foo.This is so we have the latest HEAD of main available for the rebase. Update your local main branch with git pull.Switch to your main branch with git checkout main.So how do we accomplish this? While on your side branch (in our case, foo), you’ll want to do the following. This will actually replay your commits on top of the new commits (known as the HEAD) of main, preventing merge commits. This time, we’re going to do a git rebase. Taking the same example above, let’s start with our final commit right before we’re ready to merge back into main. ![]() Let’s explore the alternative with git rebase. It’s also a bit hard to reason about the consecutive changes you made on your current branch when looking at your Git history. Those Merge branch ‘main’ into foo commits don’t seem very helpful - they’re simply logistical, and they don’t actually describe changes that you’re making on your branch. Take a look at what the history looks like. Our commits are the ones with the comments, some other thing, adding test, and addressing comments. In this case, we’re working on a branch named foo. But what if you have a longer-lived branch that you need to keep up to date? The history carries on from here, and this is fine! Many coders get on just fine using merge commits. Illustration of git, with an additional merge commitĪs you can see, we have an additional commit just for the merge. First up is a command that you're likely familiar with if you've used Git before: git merge. Illustration of git, with an additional commit on your branch But what do you do next to get it back into the main branch? You finish up your changes with one last final commit. Illustration of git, your teammate pushed some new commits. In the meantime, someone else working on a separate part of the system merges in their own Pull Request! The git history now looks a bit like this, as they don’t have any context or knowledge of your changes. You then commit some changes to your new branch. You’re working on a new change, so you create a new branch with git checkout -b. ![]() Not grokking the difference between git merge and git rebase? Let’s consider an example. This results in a linear commit history, making it easier to read and understand. Unlike merging, which creates a new merge commit and combines the history of both branches, rebasing replays the commits of one branch onto another. Git rebase allows you to change the base of your branch. Git rebase is a powerful feature of Git that has the ability to rewrite and reorganize your commit history. In this article, we’ll take a look at an alternative to the widely used git merge command. Staying up to date on new technologies is absolutely critical.īut as developers, sometimes we forget how important it is to dig a bit deeper into the tried and true technologies that are the backbone of software development – such as version control systems like Git. The software engineering landscape is constantly changing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |