To be honest, the split in two camps — always rebase vs. Rebase as team policy is a different thing than rebase as cleanup. Rebase as cleanup is a healthy part of the coding lifecycle of the git practitioner. Let me detail some example scenarios that show when rebasing is reasonable and effective and when it's not :.
With this aside clear we can now talk about policies. I'll try to keep a balanced view on the argument, and will mention how the problem is dealt with inside Atlassian. It's obviously hard to generalize since every team is different, but we have to start from somewhere. While the work is still in progress and a feature branch needs to be brought up to date with the upstream target branch, use rebase — as opposed to pull or merge — not to pollute the history with spurious merges.
NOTE: When history is rewritten in a shared branch touched by multiple developers breakage happens. Always Merge -based policies instead flow like this: When a feature branch is complete merge it to your target branch main or develop or next. Make sure the merge is explicit with --no-ff , which forces git to record a merge commit in all cases, even if the changes could be replayed automatically on top of the target branch.
If you and your team are not familiar with, or don't understand the intricacies of rebase , then you probably shouldn't use it. In this context, always merge is the safest option. If you and your team are familiar with both options, then the main decision revolves around this: Do you value more a clean, linear history?
Or the traceability of your branches? In the first case go for a rebase policy, in the later go for a merge one. The policy inside Atlassian's Bitbucket team is always to merge feature branches, and require that branches are merged through a pull request for quality and code review. But the team is not too strict around fast-forward.
This article is the result of the confluence of insightful exchanges pun intended! This piece hopefully dispels the doubts on this, and allows you to adopt an approach that works for your team.
Follow me durdn , and the fantastic AtlDevtools team for more git awesomeness. Learn about code review in Bitbucket Cloud Create a repository Clone and make a change on a new branch If you're using command line If you're using Sourcetree Create a pull request to merge your change.
Learn branching in Bitbucket Cloud Get set up Review branching workflow. Learn undoing changes with Bitbucket Cloud git status git log git reset git revert. Beginner What is version control Benefits of version control.
Source Code Management. Why Git for your Organization Git for developers Git for marketing Git for product management Git for designers Git for customer support Git for human resources Git for anyone managing a budget.
Git SSH. Git archive. Git Cheatsheet. Getting Started Setting up a repository git init git clone git config git alias. Saving changes git add git commit git diff git stash. Inspecting a repository git status git tag git blame. Undoing changes git checkout git clean git revert git reset git rm.
Rewriting history git commit --amend git rebase git rebase -i git reflog. Collaborating Syncing git remote git fetch git push git pull. Using branches git branch git checkout git merge Merge conflicts Merge strategies. To incorporate the new commits into your feature branch, you have two options: merging or rebasing. The easiest option is to merge the main branch into the feature branch using something like the following:.
The existing branches are not changed in any way. This avoids all of the potential pitfalls of rebasing discussed below. On the other hand, this also means that the feature branch will have an extraneous merge commit every time you need to incorporate upstream changes. As an alternative to merging, you can rebase the feature branch onto main branch using the following commands:. This moves the entire feature branch to begin on the tip of the main branch, effectively incorporating all of the new commits in main.
But, instead of using a merge commit, rebasing re-writes the project history by creating brand new commits for each commit in the original branch. The major benefit of rebasing is that you get a much cleaner project history.
First, it eliminates the unnecessary merge commits required by git merge. Second, as you can see in the above diagram, rebasing also results in a perfectly linear project history—you can follow the tip of feature all the way to the beginning of the project without any forks. This makes it easier to navigate your project with commands like git log , git bisect , and gitk. But, there are two trade-offs for this pristine commit history: safety and traceability. Interactive rebasing gives you the opportunity to alter 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 main. To begin an interactive rebasing session, pass the i option to the git rebase command:. This listing defines exactly what the branch will look like after the rebase is performed. For example, if the 2nd commit fixes a small problem in the 1st commit, you can condense them into a single commit with the fixup command:.
When you save and close the file, Git will perform the rebase according to your instructions, resulting in project history that looks like the following:. This is something that git merge simply cannot do. Once you understand what rebasing is, the most important thing to learn is when not to do it. The golden rule of git rebase is to never use it on public branches. For example, think about what would happen if you rebased main onto your feature branch:.
The rebase moves all of the commits in main onto the tip of feature. The problem is that this only happened in your repository. All of the other developers are still working with the original main. The only way to synchronize the two main branches is to merge them back together, resulting in an extra merge commit and two sets of commits that contain the same changes the original ones, and the ones from your rebased branch. Needless to say, this is a very confusing situation.
If you try to push the rebased main branch back to a remote repository, Git will prevent you from doing so because it conflicts with the remote main branch. But, you can force the push to go through by passing the --force flag, like so:. This overwrites the remote main branch to match the rebased one from your repository and makes things very confusing for the rest of your team.
Take the current one instead. Rebasing can be incorporated into your existing Git workflow as much or as little as your team is comfortable with. The first step in any workflow that leverages git rebase is to create a dedicated branch for each feature. This is where rebasing can serve as a helpful alternative to merging. Git rebase allows for a cleaner graph because it takes commits from one branch and places them onto another branch.
This changes the tree structure in your graph by moving the commits and their changes onto the target branch. No matter which action you choose to perform, using a visual Git client to manage the process of combining file changes gives you peace of mind. Unlike in the terminal, conflicts that arise because of a merge or rebase can be easily identified and resolved with GitKraken.
GitKraken makes the process of merging the changes between branches fast and intuitive. You can simply drag-and-drop one branch onto a target branch from the central graph to initiate a merge.
0コメント