The issue lies in the way standard rebase does its job. Sound familiar? Solving the issue with git rebase ‑‑ontoīefore blaming your colleague, you need to realize that the issue is not with the change itself. You need to catch up with their changes, so you decided to rebase: git rebase feature1Īnd now the bummer – you caught a conflict between B and B* and need to resolve it. Here is what the working tree looks like now: A - B* - E - F feature1 But they also like to use rebase, so they modified commit B a bit. While you worked on your stuff, your colleague added some new functionality in feature1. Here is what Git history looks like: A - B feature1 You happily branched off of feature1 and implemented new functionality in commits C and D. Your goal is to add some new stuff to it. Rebase or merge, what is your preference? Here in Kolosek, we lean more towards merge for our feature-based workflow.Imagine, there is a branch feature1, that was created by your colleague. If you rebase incorrectly and unintendedly rewrite the history it can lead to serious issues, so make sure you know what you are doing! You will avoid unnecessary commits and keep changes more centralized and linear! On the other hand, if you value more a clean, linear history then git rebase may be most appropriate. Can help you re-integrate a completed feature branch.Different features remain isolated and don't interfere with existing commit histories.It helps you avoid unnecessary git reverts or resets! It allows you to preserve the commit history for any given feature while not worrying about overriding commits and changing history.When your team uses a feature based workflow or is not familiar with rebase, then git merge is the right choice for you: You have to resolve the conflict in the order they were created to continue the rebase. While with merging, once you solve the conflicts, you're set. Using rebase to keep your feature branch updated requires that you resolve similar conflicts again and again. It requires more work when dealing with conflicts.You need to be more careful with rebasing than when merging. Rewriting of history is bad for teamwork! Rebasing doesn't work with pull requests, because you can't see what minor changes someone made.Lowering the feature down to a handful of commits can hide context.Avoid polluting history with 20+ single-line commits! Clean, clear commit messages make it better to track a bug or when a feature was introduced.Manipulating a single commit history is easier than a history of many separate feature branches with its additional commits.Code history is simplified, linear and readable.Debugging using git bisect can become much harder due to the merge commits.It can look like a London Tube Map Commit! Visual charts of your repository are can become a mess and don't add too much information. History can become intensely polluted by lots of merge commits because multiple people are working on the same branch in parallel.Preserves your commit history and keeps the history graph semantically correct.This can be useful if you want to take the feature and merge it into another branch later. The commits on the source branch are separated from other branch commits.Maintains the original context of the source branch.It will appear as if those commits were written on top of master branch all along. The rebase re-writes the changes of one branch onto another without creating a new commit.įor every commit that you have on the feature branch and not in the master, a new commit will be created on top of the master. When you run git merge, your HEAD branch will generate a new commit, preserving the ancestry of each commit history.įast forward merge is a type of merge that doesn't create a commit, instead, it updates the branch pointer to the last commit. Let's take a look how these methods can solve the problem. Here we have a sample repository that has two diverging branches: the master and the feature. Which method to use? What Does Merge or Rebase Mean? Although the final goal is the same, those two methods achieve it in different ways. Git merge and rebase serve the same purpose – they combine multiple branches into one.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |