When you're ready to merge your branch, you discover other developers made changes and the most recent commit is commit 5. You're right that C is the wrong tool for a lot of applications. First project we tried it on had the worst possible environment, a mix of Windows and Linux systems. The point of Git is that it gets the underlying data model right, and just exposes that. Search is critical for me to get around these things. It's frustrating how slowly they learn and conversely, how inefficiently they work. This allows you to rebase the root commit s on a branch.
To beat a dead horse, if you had two developers: One using git and the other using mercurial, and both need to search heavily, the mercurial person will likely have already solved the problem in one way or another. Keeping it simple since January 1st, 1970. People complain, but what's the alternative? The typical advice -- which you'll see in this thread and elsewhere -- is that anyone who uses git should learn git's internals, and preferably up-front, since apparently that will magically cause git to make sense. I totally agree, git is worth learning. I've been using Git Extensions for a while now it's awesome! Are you suggesting a Git user will eventually need to understand it? Your commit log is the one thing that is immutably linked to your code changes. There are good keyboard shortcuts for everything in gitup so most everything I do doesn't even involve the mouse. You can go back to the slide if you need to, but it's a way to specify to get to run a command after every rebase action.
If it reaches a commit with a conflict, it'll pause the rebase and resume once it's fixed. It is an alternative to git submodules. But if part of your workflow is authoring sequences of commits that make sense in hindsight, then I honestly haven't seen an alternative. To restore the original and remove the. In that case, you need a merge.
I absolutely love gitup; all of these slice-and-dice operations that are brainteasers in command-line git are just intuitively obvious in gitup. Or how to revert a commit? None of them really align, though with some careful use you can actually make Git do what you want - eventually. You can use git reset --soft to change the version you want to have as parent for the changes you have in your index and working tree. Autosquashing keeps it from getting overwhelmed by obnoxious footnotes. I had no idea what the error was. I'm actually not simplifying things that much here, the main git addition is that each folder revision also has a list of previous folders revisions and that the folders revisions are not named sequentially, they are named based on a hash of their contents. Short answers to your questions Are these two commands really the same reset --soft vs commit --amend? Updating the branch symlink you are on to point to that new folder.
For many years people around me have been asking for git help because I know how to recover from lost stashes and use the reflog, etc. Just wanted to point out that it is not the end of the world if you have to push with --force, you just need to know about the consequences and if it gets you into trouble. Let's say you're a junior dev starting at a cupcake store called Cupid's Cupcakes. For example, let's say I make 5 commits to complete a particular task. Also doable with a little est. Working with branches testing and production, we even have some repositories with multiple testing and production branches are working like they are supposed to do.
So by prefixing the commit message with either fixup! It can be enabled for each rebase using git rebase -i --autosquash, but it's easier to turn it on by default. The reason I ask this is because in the pitchfork workflow, how do you know which branch gets integrated first, second, etc. I wrote it as resolving it like a normal merge conflict since in the Github documentation I read, that's how they emphasized it, so I borrowed their phrasing a bit. Anytime a command pauses because of a conflict you can run git mergetool and it will open each conflicting file in the default conflict resolution application. However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted. You're not even giving anything up. I have had reason to do multiple passes using git rebase --interactive --autosquash.
Been there too, with the same result. Tip There is a button that swaps branch and upstream. Indeed I have used reset for the first time only yesterday, but the soft reset still doesn't make much sense to me. There is no substitute for understanding what's going on, especially using a power tool like Git. This also seems to be why Facebook switched from Git to Mercurial: they needed to be able to check out individual folders from a branch and Git simply didn't provide any way to do that without first checking out the entire branch. I want to make sure that my tests pass and that I'm not checking in any breaking commits. I don't believe it's a cause for any serious concerns though.
So make use of it! Of course, you shouldn't with rare exceptions edit history you have already shared with others; but, I never found that concept, or the way git implements it, particularly hard to understand. It does not need to be Vim. If you push commits somewhere and others pull them down and base work on them, and then you rewrite those commits with git rebase and push them up again, your collaborators will have to re-merge their work and things will get messy when you try to pull their work back into yours. One developer added extra info onto the new cupcake card, such as calorie count or how many elves it takes to make it at night. So, a few things have happened here. There's a class of bad situations that nuke will make worse and not better.
If there is no -s option git merge-recursive is used instead. At work, we want to increase dev's confidence with git in the next few months. What if someone merged a change that affects or overlaps with the ones you made? May be any valid commit, not just an existing branch name. The best commit histories tell an understandable story. So, yeah, its speed matters to me. Then, you branched off that to make the client-side changes client and committed a few times. Let's say I made a mistake in commit A and then made commit B.
Of course, it took a lot of suffering to get here. What that means in practice is you may have master and branch A on your machine, and your two coworkers might have B and C on their machines, but none of you have rights to push these branches to the main repository location. If your first commit with title s1 were followed by a commit whose title was squash! And I can git rebase -i with a --autosquash. This normally means that you shouldn't rebase commits you have already pushed or - if you do nevertheless - know exactly what the consequences are in your case and get consent of other people working on the branch if needed. Rebasing is not fine if the commit has already been shared, through a different branch or a different remote repository, for example.