807
Well well well. (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
130 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Yeah learned this the hard way.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

Is it ok to continue on a branch if you also merge back main into it?

On some repositories, sure.

But better maintained repositories don't allow merge commits (because merge commits suck), and so will have squashed (or rebased) on merge.

(If squashed) The squash will have changed commit IDs, so a long running branch rebased won't benefit from a clean shared commit history.

So it can work, but "you're gonna have a bad time."

In general, git works best if branches are thrown away as soon and as often as possible.

(Edit: Good clarification in response below, added here for consistency and accuracy.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    You don't have to squash to avoid merge commits. Instead, you can git rebase main to update your branch. Effectively, this will rewrite the history of your branch, as if you had just branched from the main-branch and then instantly coded all your changes on top of that. (Well, the commit timestamps won't change, but they will sit on top of the changes of the main-branch.)

    Afterwards, you should be able to merge into main by switching to it and then running git merge --ff-only your_branch.
    Because all the changes sit on top of the main-branch commits, it should be able to fast-forward. No actual merging needs to take place then. You've already resolved any conflicts while rebasing.

    This also allows you to keep branches for longer, so long as you frequently rebase and merge back.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent