![]() ![]() In this article, we’ll compare git rebase with the related git merge command and identify all of the potential opportunities to incorporate rebasing into the typical Git workflow. Here you can find more details on how to deal with conflicts using git rerere.The git rebase command has a reputation for being magical Git hocus pocus that beginners should stay away from, but it can actually make life much easier for a development team when used with care. ![]() Resolved 'somefile' using previous resolution. It will also let you know about it in the merge output:ĬONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in 'somefile' Next time the same conflict occurs – a conflict involving the exact same lines on both sides of the merge – Git will automatically apply the same resolution it had recorded previously. Update: Resolving recurring conflictsĪs pointed out in the comments, Git does have an automated solution for resolving conflicts that occur multiple times: git rerere, or " reuse recorded resolution".Īfter you enable rerere in your configuration file ( rerere.enabled true) every time a merge conflict occurs, Git will record the state of the conflicting files before and after you merge them. git merge merges two commits – with their entire set of changes – as a single operation, so you only have to resolve the conflicts once. The difference is that git rebase merges one commit at a time on top of the previous one starting from the common parent. When you merge public branches you often want to have those merge commits in order to be able to track how commits moved across branches. Now, if someone has added new commits on top of the old ones in the meantime, they will have to move them. This means that once you push the rebased commits to the shared branch, they will appear as completely new commits to anyone that fetches them on their local repo, even if they still contain the same changes. It's best used to merge local branches, that is branches that only exist in your local repository and haven't been published to other people. commits that have two or more parents) making it appear as a linear history. Rebasing is a way to merge branches without having merge commits (i.e. git rebase resolve conflicts again and again?īased on the fact that Feature A and Feature B seem to be shared branches, I'd say no.Why do I have to resolve the same conflict over and over?.What is happening under the hood that causes the same conflict to reappear again and again? My understanding is rebase resolves conflicts one at a time, but which commit does it compare, and what does it compare it to?.Is git rebase suitable for our situation? Or is rebase only good for pulling in a few (e.g., 1 or 2) changes?. ![]() It turns out the conflicts are actually easy to resolve. This drives us crazy, so we end up aborting the rebase, and use git merge. But the strange thing is that the same conflict keeps reappearing after git rebase -continue. That's expected, because both features (and master) have changes in the same areas. We want to follow the first rebase then merge practice, but when we rebase Feature A onto Feature B, we get conflicts. Given 2 feature branches that stem from master at different times, we now want to combine the 2 branches. I have read relevant questions about git merge and git rebase on SO, but I still cannot fully understand what is happening under the hood. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |