![force branch onto master git force branch onto master git](https://dev.vividbreeze.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/gitMergeIntoBranch-1.jpg)
when master is recreated on remote, a pull will attempt to merge that new master on their local (now old) master: lots of conflicts.if other users try to pull while master is deleted on remote, their pulls will fail ("no such ref on remote").Git push origin master # create master on remote Git checkout -b master seotweaks # create a new local master on top of seotweaks Git push origin master-old # create master-old on remote Git push origin :master # delete master on remote (Regarding GitHub, house9 comments: "I had to do one additional step, click the ' Admin' button on GitHub and set the ' Default Branch' to something other than ' master', then put it back afterwards") git branch -m master master-old # rename master on local (Make a git remote show to check how your remote is declared within your local repo. That might not be the case here since everyone seems to be working on branch ' seotweaks'. Problem: This seems to improve directly upon the situation where we use just -force, but still has some caveats, most notably when I do a git fetch instead of a git pull, which updates our local upstream branches, tricking -force-with-lease into thinking that no unmerged changes were made on the remote branch.You can rename/remove master on remote, but this will be an issue if lots of people have based their work on the remote master branch and have pulled that branch in their local repo.
FORCE BRANCH ONTO MASTER GIT UPDATE
Refuses to update a branch unless it is the state that we expect i.e. I just learned about the git push -force-with-lease alternative to git push -force, which
FORCE BRANCH ONTO MASTER GIT CODE
(You could have multiple rebases if you make changes after a code review, for instance) Use git push -force-with-lease Problem: A big downside here is that, strictly speaking, you need a new branch for every rebase. Then have some-feature-rebase reviewed and integrated. When having a messy branch some-feature, rebase it on a new branch. I'm listing some possibilities here that cross my mind. You can push to this and then rebase all your commits into a single commit prior to merging, so when you merge them into your feature-branch, you only have 1 commit (with the rebased history of your entire branch). What you could do instead for your intermediate work is create a fork of that branch. This means you do care about the history on the branch. It sounds like you have multiple people pushing to that branch simultaneously. Generally one can rebase by doing the following: Pull the latest code from both the issue-123 and master branches with the following commands: git checkout master. Still, push forcing it might theoretically result in loss of commits from other users who pushed to the same branch As an example, suppose one is working on the branch issue-123, and there have been improvements to the master branch. I suppose you're asking if I would keep the unrebased branch? No, AFAIC. The situation where you would want to keep the history and not force push is if your remote branch is persisting after being merged and not only existing for a temporary period of time. All your force push is doing in this case is allowing you to use github as a backup. Assuming you squash/rebase the branch prior to making your merge/PR you lose this history. If you delete your remote feature branch after merging into master, you already are losing the history. Do you keep your remote branch after merging back into master?.My question here asks for a policy to solve the conflict between wanting to backup your work in the remote repository and rebasing your work, while the other question tries to deny that there is a conflict and asks why some people think the conflict exists at all, and thus asks why "it is essential" not to push force rebases? Is there a (generally accepted) policy that solves this conflict? Why this is not a duplicate of Is the git "Golden Rule of Rebasing" so essential?
![force branch onto master git force branch onto master git](https://dyed4youart.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/JoinForces-550x393.jpg)
Practice to rebase commits when you've already pushed to a repository. Or as the linked github page says:īecause changing your commit history can make thingsĭifficult for everyone else using the repository, it's considered bad However, this leads to the fact that I often have to do a git push -force to the remote repository after a rebase, an action which is generally frowned upon.
![force branch onto master git force branch onto master git](https://i.imgur.com/wVtAK0a.png)
when my hard-drive crashes, I don't want my entire feature branch to be lost. When I'm working on a feature branch, I tend to want to cleanup the commits in the branch using an interactive rebase before my work is reviewed and integrated in the main branch.ĭuring development of the feature, I want to push my intermediate work to the remote repository as a backup measure.