Stashing code requires unnecessary mental overhead. In such a case, it is tempting to use git stash and git stash pop to store pending changes. As such, there is often a need to briefly set aside your current work in order to attend to more pressing matters. The life of a developer is typically "interrupt driven". I want to temporarily set-aside my feature work. Chances are, your feature branches are living way too long. If you find yourself having to do this a lot or, you find yourself dealing with a lot of "conflict resolution", you need to reevaluate your git workflow. # force delete (`-D`) it since it was never merged into `master`.ĪSIDE: You should almost never need to do this. # Delete the old backup branch as it is no longer needed. Git commit -m "This feature is done and awesome." # All the file-changes should now be in the `my-feature` branch as staged Now, you can "squash merge" your old feature branch into the new # At this point, your `my-feature` branch and your `master` branch should be # Now, checkout the `master` branch and use it to create a new, clean # start off my renaming the branch as a backup (the `-m` modifier performs a # Assuming that the `my-feature` branch is the branch that needs to be fixed, At that point, you can commit all the staged changes as a single commit.Īssuming your my-feature branch needs to be "fixed", you can use the following workflow: Instead, the changes are brought-over as staged changes on top of the current branch. When you run git merge -squash, you copy the file-changes from one branch into another branch without actually copying the commit meta-data. In such a case, you can use the merge command with the -squash modifier as an escape hatch. However, once you make the mistake of periodically merging master into your feature branch, you are inviting a world of hurt. In the vast majority of cases, if your git workflow is clean and true and your feature branch is short-lived, an interactive rebase should be straightforward and pain-free. I want to squash several commits into one commit without using rebase. And, once provided, your four shameful commits will be squashed down into a single, cohesive, meaningful commit. Once saved, git will prompt you to provide a cleaner commit message. S f7ee6ab Woot, finally got this working. It should look something like this, with the commits listed in ascending order (oldest first): # telling `git` to use the `master` commit as the starting point:Īs this point, git will open up an editor that outlines the various commits and asks you how you want to rearrange them. # commits down into a single commit using an interactive rebase. # your family if it ended-up in `master`. # At this point, your commit history is sloppy and would bring much shame on ![]() Git commit -m "Woot, finally got this working." ![]() Git commit -m "Uggggg! Why is this so hard?" ![]() changes to the working tree (your file system). # Create the `my-feature` branch based on `master`. If you're on an up-to-date feature branch, the starting point should be master. ![]() When performing an interactive rebase, you have to tell git which commit to use as the starting point. Some commits can be "squashed" (combined) together. The "interactive rebase" gives you an opportunity to indicate how intermediary commits should be rearranged. To do this, you can perform an "interactive rebase". This allows you to get rid of intermediary commit messages like, "still working on it." and "Meh, missed a bug.". As such, you will often need to rewrite your feature branch's history before merging it into master. It is a manifestation of your self-respect and the respect you have for your team. Your commit history is a representation or your personality. I want to squash several commits into one (or more) commits. When you rm files using -cached, they will remain in your working tree and will become "unstaged" changes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |