Some people feel that history should reflect your true history, the good the bad and the ugly. Then, the fix is to be applied to the master branch first and later back-ported to the nextversion branch. If I understand rebase correctly, multiple merges would require multiple conflict resolutions. The ordering is from first to last, so exactly the other way as in git log. Merge is always a forward moving change record. I propose a clean history is more valuable than one that is hard to understand.
This list accepts commands, allowing the user to edit the list before initiating the rebase action. The Fixup Command We expressed a lot of concerns about squashing commits, as tangled changes have a negative impact on process analysis. What you actually care about was the developers intent? Once this is done and saved, another editor pops up with the following: This is a combination of 4 commits. Have a look at it with git log. Git already provides a feature for this scenario: the fixup command. Moderately related: In a related question, I managed to come up with a different approach to the need of squashing against the first commit, which is, well, to make it the second one. Sometimes i need to reset soft on my own commits.
Re-writing its history will make it impossible for Git and your teammates to track any follow-up commits added to the feature. The latter option is nice when you only need to fix up the last few commits. Git Rebase Standard vs Git Rebase Interactive Git rebase interactive is when git rebase accepts an -- i argument. The context in which the developer was working has been lost. I expected my editor to be restarted so that I could enter a commit message. Tentatively -1ing this because it seems to me that in fact the opposite is true and this is a hack; aren't you performing more commands than necessary just in order to force git merge into doing one of the things that git rebase is specifically designed for? Intro This tutorial will cover various methods of rewriting and altering Git history. You can now change the message of any commit you want.
And it looks like below. Rewriting history means abandoning existing commits and creating new ones, that may be very similar but are different. The git rebase command allows you to easily change a series of commits, modifying the history of your repository. The rebase would replace the old commits with new ones and it would look like that part of your project history abruptly vanished. Do not use this option unless you have read git-rebase 1 carefully.
This is the 4th commit message: Changed the tagline in the binary, too. At a first look, squashing might make the history easier to read. You can now merge commits together. As an example, we use the same scenario as the one in the rebase section: The developer wants to squash commits C 4, C 5 and C 6 in the current checkout of branch featurebranch. An interesting option it accepts is --interactive -i for short , which will open an editor with a list of the commits which are about to be changed.
This results in a forked history, which should be familiar to anyone who has used Git as a collaboration tool. However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted. Disadvantages Every time one combines multiple events into one single event, data is lost. I haven't seen a workflow like that on this page. To begin an interactive rebasing session, pass the i option to the git rebase command: git checkout feature git rebase -i master This will open a text editor listing all of the commits that are about to be moved: pick 33d5b7a Message for commit 1 pick 9480b3d Message for commit 2 pick 5c67e61 Message for commit 3 This listing defines exactly what the branch will look like after the rebase is performed. So please consider if you have two branches master and slave.
However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted. We saw an example of the first option in the Interactive Rebasing section. Gitready - Squashing commits with rebase. I've added --- older commit and --- newer commit to make it clear, you won't find those notes in the editor. I edit that commit message, save and quit the editor, and here is the output: robots.
Typically, this is used to clean up a messy history before merging a feature branch into master. This is the 1st commit message: Add new article This is the commit message 2: Fix typo Please enter the commit message for your changes. If there are no changes staged, a --amend will still prompt you to modify the last commit message log. The former option results in a 3-way merge and a merge commit, while the latter results in a fast-forward merge and a perfectly linear history. This has the same consequences as resetting a public snapshot.