![]() To update the references from remote, git fetch is used. Note how the branch tracking also changed to upstream/develop. Your branch is up to date with 'upstream/develop'. Renaming remote references: 100% (44/44), done. While not needed, it’s also possible to rename origin to something else: $ git remote rename origin upstream We can now see there’s a remote named ekohl which points to my fork. Then you fork it, and add it as a new remote: $ git remote add ekohl That’s an irrelevant detail now, but Git - git-config Documentation exists in case you’re interested.įor now the important part is: there’s a remote named origin that points to GitHub’s theforeman/foreman. You can see I have a different URL to push and pull. Remote: Enumerating objects: 155898, done. By default when you clone a repository it creates a remote named origin: $ git clone You should understand that git has remotes. However, something that commonly goes wrong is that people rebase on the wrong branch and end up with incorrect histories.įirst of all, let’s talk about the environment. GitHub’s documentation describes interactive rebase: About Git rebase - GitHub Docs ![]() There is documentation that describes a lot, but it is rather complicated for people new to git. Just try it next time your upstream rebases something on you.Developers are often asked to rebase their git branch. That might sound a little complicated, but it works out fine. ![]() ![]() As soon as it finds one, it picks it as the starting point for the rebase ( e in the example above). , and so on) it checks if that commit is an ancestor of the current branch head foo. This reflog represents the tips of successive git fetch operations on origin, in “most recent first” order.įor each reflog entry, ( then. To do this, it looks at the reflog of the remote tracking branch ( origin/foo, in this case). The command tries to find out which commits are really your local ones, and which had come from upstream in an earlier fetch. You may still get conflicts, but they will be genuine conflicts (between p/q/r and a/b+c/d+e/f), and not conflicts caused by b/c conflicting with b+c, etc. What git pull -rebase does, in this case, is: git fetch origin Even a git fetch git rebase origin/foo would not cut it, because commits “b” and “c” on one side, and commit “b+c” on the other, would conflict. His commit chain now looks like this: a-b+c-d+e-f (origin/foo)Ī git pull at this point would result in chaos. Meanwhile, in a fit of anti-social rage, the upstream maintainer has not only rebased his “foo”, he even used a squash or two. Time passes, and you have made some commits on top of your own “foo”: a-b-c-d-e-p-q-r (foo) Let’s say your starting point is this: a-b-c-d-e (origin/foo) (also your local "foo") Here’s an explanation of what it does and how. Which means git pull -rebase has to do a little bit more than that. Without going into why they would do that, and how many beers (I prefer rum+coke, thank you!) should be offered in compensation to downstream users, let’s just try and describe how git helps you deal with it.Ī normal git pull is, loosely speaking, something like this (we’ll use a remote called origin and a branch called foo in all these examples): # assume current checked out branch is "foo"Īt first glance, you might think that a git pull -rebase does just this: git fetch originīut that will not help if the upstream rebase involved any “squashing” (meaning that the patch-ids of the commits changed, not just their order). This can be a big problem – causing messy conflicts for us if we’re downstream. Sometimes we have an upstream that rebased/rewound a branch we’re depending on. Gitolite documentation has another /gitolite in the URL, so "" and so ALL my git related stuff gets carried over. That's just an artifact of "" being translated to Although this page has a "" URL, this is not about gitolite.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |