![]() ![]() It’s a bit like saying, “I know I have this awesome car but I prefer to stick to the first gear, as I know speed kills,” rather than learning how to shift up and getting comfortable traveling safely at higher velocities. But not learning to take full advantage of powerful features, even though you know they exist, isn’t such a good approach! Many developers tend to only use merge rather than rebase, generally with the comment “At least I know I won’t lose any work.” In a sense, it’s a solid approach to not use tools you aren’t comfortable working with. Rebase from master git update#This same trait is in fact what makes rebase so powerful - it allows you to tidy up your development history before making it publicly available! With an interactive rebase (the subject of a forthcoming article) you can for example remove unwanted commits, squash changes together, or simply update commit messages. When new commits are reapplied, the old ones are (eventually, post garbage collection) deleted. Loss of data (to your advantage)įinally, as rebase rewrites history while merge preserves it, it’s possible to actually lose data when rebasing. If this happens, pulling remote changes using the rebase flag ( git pull -rebase) generally solves the problem.įurthermore, whenever you are rebasing an already published branch, regardless if no one else has based their work on it, you’ll still need to force push it to get your updates to the remote server - overwriting the existing remote reference completely. Then, your rebased branch can cause serious confusion and headaches for all involved parties as Git will tell you that your branch is both ahead and behind at the same time. Published branchesĪnother potential problem related to rebase occurs when the branch you are rebasing has already been published remotely, and someone else has based their work on it. ![]() If conflicts aren’t so straightforward to solve, that may be a sign that you and your colleagues have not been communicating enough as you’ve been working on the same files for too long. With rebase, on the other hand, you could potentially have been forced to solve similar conflicts in each commit ( C5 and C6) as they were reapplied. In the merge scenario, you would have only needed to solve the conflicts once, straight in the C7 commit. Let’s say, for example, you’ve had some nasty conflicts trying to integrate changes. But what does this mean in a broader sense? And what possibilities and potential drawbacks do the two operations come with? Conflicting changes We’ve seen how rebase rewrites history, while merge preserves it. With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |