You can also set this as the default behavior in your Preferences if you like:īy taking this approach, when developing in parallel on a shared branch, you and your colleagues can still create a linear history, which is much simpler to read than if each member merges whenever some commits are built in parallel. In SourceTree, you can do this in the Pull dialog: It’s important to note that your commits must not have been shared with others yet. In other words, you’ll be pulling down other people’s changes and immediately rebasing your commits on top of these latest changes, allowing you to push the combined result back as a linear history. In this case, I would always recommend the ‘Pull with rebase’ approach. With shared branches, several people commit to the same branch, and they find that when pushing, they get an error indicating that someone else has pushed first. To explore this further, let’s say you work in a development team with many committers, and that your team uses both shared branches as well as personal feature branches. Looking at the above pros/cons, it’s clear that it’s generally not a case of choosing between one or the other, but more a case of using each at the appropriate times. If anyone else checks out that branch and you later rebase it, it’s going to get very confusing. In Git, you may push commits you may want to rebase later (as a backup) but only if it’s to a remote branch that only you use. In Mercurial, you simply cannot push commits that you later intend to rebase, because anyone pulling from the remote will get them. Rewriting of history has ramifications if you’ve previously pushed those commits elsewhere.SourceTree guides you through this process, but it can still become a bit more complicated. With a conflict, you have to resolve the conflict in order to continue the rebase. Each commit is rebased in order, and a conflict will interrupt the process of rebasing multiple commits. Slightly more complex, especially under conflict conditions.Is the most intuitive and clutter-free way to combine commits from multiple developers in a shared branch. If the need to merge arises simply because multiple people are working on the same branch in parallel, the merges don’t serve any useful historic purpose and create clutter.Existing commits on the source branch are unchanged and remain valid it doesn’t matter if they’ve been shared with others.This separation can be useful in the case of feature branches, where you might want to take a feature and merge it into another branch later. The commits on the source branch remain separate from other branch commits, provided you don’t perform a fast-forward merge.Maintains the original context of the source branch.So, what are the pros and cons of merging and rebasing? Pros and Cons This has important ramifications which we’ll talk about below. But this rebase requires the commits on the source branch to be re-written, which changes their content and their SHAs. So merging keeps the separate lines of development explicitly, while rebasing always ends up with a single linear path of development for both branches. Here’s a visual comparison between merging and rebasing a branch ‘feature/awesomestuff’ back to the master branch (click for full size): In contrast, rebasing unifies the lines of development by re-writing changes from the source branch so that they appear as children of the destination branch – effectively pretending that those commits were written on top of the destination branch all along. Merging brings two lines of development together while preserving the ancestry of each commit history. Let’s start by defining what merging and rebasing are. So which one do you use? What does Merge or Rebase mean? Eventually some or all of these commits have to be brought together into a shared graph, and merging and rebasing are two primary ways that let us do that. They have to be, since their design strongly encourages developers to commit changes in parallel in their own distributed environments. Merge or Rebase? By Steve on August 21, 2012Īs you’re no doubt aware, Git and Mercurial are great at re-integrating divergent lines of development through merging.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |