Posted By: Anonymous
A new branch from
master is created, we call it
There are several developers who either commit to
master or create other branches and later merge into
Let’s say work on
test is taking several days and you want to continuously keep
test updated with commits inside
I would do
git pull origin master from
Question 1: Is this the right approach? Other developers could have easily worked on same files as I have worked btw.
My work on
test is done and I am ready to merge it back to
master. Here are the two ways I can think of:
git checkout test git pull origin master git push origin test git checkout master git pull origin test
git checkout test git pull origin master git checkout master git merge test
I am not using
--rebase because from my understanding, rebase will get the changes from
master and stack mine on top of that hence it could overwrite changes other people made.
Question 2: Which one of these two methods is right? What is the difference there?
The goal in all of this is to keep my
test branch updated with the things happening in
master and later I could merge them back into
master hoping to keep the timeline as linear as possible.
How I would do this
git checkout master git pull origin master git merge test git push origin master
If I have a local branch from a remote one, I don’t feel comfortable with merging other branches than this one with the remote. Also I would not push my changes, until I’m happy with what I want to push and also I wouldn’t push things at all, that are only for me and my local repository. In your description it seems, that
test is only for you? So no reason to publish it.
git always tries to respect yours and others changes, and so will
--rebase. I don’t think I can explain it appropriately, so have a look at the Git book – Rebasing or git-ready: Intro into rebasing for a little description. It’s a quite cool feature