It does this by re-writing the project history by creating brand new commits for each commit in the original feature branch. This allows altering the commits as they are moved to the new branch. Typically this is used to clean up a messy history before merging a feature branch into master. This defines exactly what the branch will look like after the rebase is performed. By re-ordering the entities, you can make the history look like whatever you want. For example, you can use commands like fixup , squash , edit etc, in place of pick.
But we have to start somewhere. Teams need to consider several questions when setting their Git rebase vs. Because as it turns out, one workflow strategy is not better than the other. It is dependent on your team. Consider the level of rebasing and Git competence across your organization. Determine the degree to which you value the simplicity of rebasing as compared to the traceability and history of merging.
Finally, decisions on merging and rebasing should be considered in the context of a clear branching strategy Refer this article to understand more about branching strategy. A successful branching strategy is designed around the organization of your teams.
As the team grows, it will become hard to manage or trace development changes with an always merge policy. To have a clean and understandable commit history, using Rebase is reasonable and effective. By considering the following circumstances and guidelines, you can get best out of Rebase:. I hope this explanation has given some insights on Git merge and Git rebase. Merge vs rebase strategy is always debatable.
But perhaps this article will help dispel your doubts and allow you to adopt an approach that works for your team. Basically you create a list of common ancestors for two commits and then recursively merge them, either fast forwarding them, or creating virtual commits that get used for the basis of a three-way merge on the files.
How are we doing? Please help us improve Stack Overflow. Take our short survey. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Collectives on Stack Overflow. Learn more. How does 'git merge' work in details? Ask Question. Asked 8 years, 8 months ago. Active 1 year, 11 months ago. Viewed 39k times. The answers at least to these sub-questions will be helpful: How does git detect the context of a particular non-conflicting change?
Which things does git auto-merge? How does git perform when there is no common base for merging branches? How does git perform when there are multiple common bases for merging branches? What happens when I merge multiple branches at once? What is a difference between merge strategies? But the description of a whole algorithm will be much better. Improve this question. I guess you could fill a whole book with these answers Or you could just go and read the code, which would take about as long as "describing the whole algorithm" — Nevik Rehnel.
DanielHilgarth I would be glad to find out, if there is already such book somewhere. References are welcome. NevikRehnel Yes, I can. But it can get much easier, if some one already knows the theory behind this code.
What is "the context of a particular non-conflicting change"? Points 2. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. A high-level description would go something like this: Find a suitable merge base B - a version of the file that is an ancestor of both of the new versions X and Y , and usually the most recent such base although there are cases where it will have to go back further, which is one of the features of git s default recursive merge Perform diffs of X with B and Y with B.
Walk through the change blocks identified in the two diffs. If both sides introduce the same change in the same spot, accept either one; if one introduces a change and the other leaves that region alone, introduce the change in the final; if both introduce changes in a spot, but they don't match, mark a conflict to be resolved manually. Improve this answer. CEGRD 7, 4 4 gold badges 23 23 silver badges 35 35 bronze badges.
Those commands generate a new commit will have more than 2 parents. I did one merge -X octopus on Git 1. Torek mentions that since 2. I tried it out empirically on on Git 1. There's a new SO link to this question, so I scanned through this answer which is quite good and noticed that a recent Git change has outdated the last section a bit.
You work on your website and do some commits. Doing so moves the iss53 branch forward, because you have it checked out that is, your HEAD is pointing to it :. Now you get the call that there is an issue with the website, and you need to fix it immediately.
All you have to do is switch back to your master branch. At this point, your project working directory is exactly the way it was before you started working on issue 53, and you can concentrate on your hotfix. This is an important point to remember: when you switch branches, Git resets your working directory to look like it did the last time you committed on that branch. It adds, removes, and modifies files automatically to make sure your working copy is what the branch looked like on your last commit to it.
Next, you have a hotfix to make. You can run your tests, make sure the hotfix is what you want, and finally merge the hotfix branch back into your master branch to deploy to production. You do this with the git merge command:. Your change is now in the snapshot of the commit pointed to by the master branch, and you can deploy the fix.
You can delete it with the -d option to git branch :. If you need to pull it in, you can merge your master branch into your iss53 branch by running git merge master , or you can wait to integrate those changes until you decide to pull the iss53 branch back into master later. All you have to do is check out the branch you wish to merge into and then run the git merge command:.
This looks a bit different than the hotfix merge you did earlier. In this case, your development history has diverged from some older point. In this case, Git does a simple three-way merge, using the two snapshots pointed to by the branch tips and the common ancestor of the two. Instead of just moving the branch pointer forward, Git creates a new snapshot that results from this three-way merge and automatically creates a new commit that points to it.
This is referred to as a merge commit, and is special in that it has more than one parent. Now that your work is merged in, you have no further need for the iss53 branch.
0コメント