I probably annoy my coworkers by constantly complaining about them merging master. I don't think any of them understand what I'm talking about. Probably because I just yell and never explain.
So let's walk through a little scenario that explains why merging master is stupid.
Let's create a new repository and make some commits:
$ mkdir git-test $ cd git-test $ git init . Initialized empty Git repository in /Users/mrkrstphr/Projects/git-test/.git/ $ echo 'foooo' > README.md $ git add README.md $ git commit -m "adding readme" [master (root-commit) 0ad500b] adding readme 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 README.md $ echo 'fofoofofof' >> README.md $ git commit -am "2. adding" 1 Merge branch 'master' into foo [master 31fd32d] 2. adding 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Now let's go ahead and create a new branch to do some separate work in:
$ git checkout -b foo $ echo 'asdfasdf' >> LOL $ git add LOL $ git commit -am "a. first commit" [foo 21edb08] a. first commit 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 LOL
If we're working with other people, or maybe doing separate work, master might change while we're working on this
$ git checkout master Switched to branch 'master' $ echo '234234234' >> README.md $ git commit -am "3. more more more" [master f25c8a8] 3. more more more 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Since we've diverged from
master, it's quite possible -- and quite common -- that we may want to bring those changes
master to our branch so we can use or incorporate them.
Conventional and common wisdom says to merge those changes in:
$ git checkout foo Switched to branch 'foo' $ git merge master Merge made by the 'recursive' strategy. README.md | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Great job, dope. Now look at your commit history:
$ git log --oneline eabde5b Merge branch 'master' into foo f25c8a8 3. more more more 21edb08 a. first commit 31fd32d 2. adding 0ad500b adding readme
We've mangled our commit history such that it looks like
21edb08 happened before
f25c8a8, and that will hold true
when you inevitably merge this into master. Now things are out of order.
And even worse, you've introduced a dumb, useless merge commit
Let's undo your mess:
$ git reset --hard HEAD^1 HEAD is now at 21edb08 a. first commit $ git log --oneline 21edb08 a. first commit 31fd32d 2. adding 0ad500b adding readme
Now, instead of merging, let's rebase our branch on top of master:
$ git rebase master First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it... Applying: a. first commit $ git log --oneline 76adf90 a. first commit f25c8a8 3. more more more 31fd32d 2. adding 0ad500b adding readme
Hey, look at that: our commit history is pretty. It's in the proper order that thigns happened, and we don't have a meaningless merge commit.
So what is rebasing?
When you create a branch, you diverge from the mainline:
A1 -> A2 -> A3 -> B1
A3 are commits to master. At
A3, you create a new branch and make a commit, which becomes
The base of your new branch is
A3, as that's where you created it from.
When further commits happen to master, you get behind:
A1 -> A2 -> A3 -> A4 -> A5 -> B1 -> B2
When you rebase, you're moving the base of your branch forward. Git essentially re-runs your branch's commits on top of master:
A1 -> A2 -> A3 -> A4 -> A5 -> C1 -> C2
The base of the your branch is now
A5, and your commits,
B2 have been rewritten on top of
A5. We call
C2 as they are completely new commits with different changes and ref hashes.
To learn more about rebasing, with better graphics, checkout Git Branching - Rebasing.
When to Rebase
So when does it make sense to rebase? Always? Definitely not.
Rebasing makes the most sense when you're trying to incorporate others changes into your non-master branch. As part of doing your work outside of master, you don't want to affect the order in which things happened in master, which merging may do. You want to build your work on top of master.
It almost always makes sense to rebase your branch with master and never merge master into your branch.
This also gives the added benefit of solve conflicts in your branch before going to master, rather than solving conflicts in master.
When to Merge
The inverse of this is that you should never rebase your branch into master, as it rewrites the history of master. Instead, your branch should always be merged into master.
There is a way to merge into master without generating a stinky merge commit, and that's to use the
when merging. Fast-forward only prevents a merge from happening, and will only pull your changes in if it can simply
move the branch
HEAD pointer to the
HEAD pointer of the branch you're merging it.
git merge --ff-only foo
If it can't, it will fail. When it can't fast-forward, it's almost always because the branch you're trying to merge
a branch that hasn't been rebased with master. If the base of the branch isn't the
HEAD of master, it can't simply
drop your branch's commits on top of master.
To solve this, just make sure you rebase your branch with master:
git rebase master git checkout master git merge --ff-only foo
This seems like a lot of work, but look how pretty and easy to follow your commit history is!
Dealing with GitHub
If you're using GitHub, or some other inferior system, you don't have control over pull requests are merged. GitHub isn't going to do a rebase then a merge for you, they're just going to generate a merge commit.
There is a way around this, but it's worse than the rebase-merge dance: you can handle the merge on the command line and manually push up to master.
Ain't nobody got time for that. At this point, it's probably easiest to just deal with the few merge commits generated by pull requests. It's still less merge commits than those generated by merging master all the time.
Beware of Rewriting History
Rebasing is essentially rewriting history, even if you end up with the same number of commits in the same order. Remember, rebasing generates brand new commits with new ref hashes. Why does this matter?
If anyone else happens to have those commits in their history -- say you push your branch up to GitHub so another developer could work on it -- they're going to have a bad time.
You're essentially destroying their history. The next time they try to pull updates from your branch, it's not going
to work cleanly (unless they use a
git pull --rebase, which they really should be doing anyway).
If they try to push up to your branch, they can't. Unless they force it, which at that point will erase your changes.
They'll first have to
git pull --rebase.
This just makes things more difficult. Workable, with proper communication, but difficult.
Never should you rebase within master. If you do, you're asking for hellfire to rain upon you.
Dealing with Conflicts
The downside to rebasing is conflicts. Conflicts can be generated when you merge or rebase, but they can become much more difficult when rebasing.
When merging with conflicts, you resolve all the conflicts at once, in one giant merge party commit.
Remember that when we rebase, each commit is re-applied on top of master (or whatever branch you're rebasing onto). So each commit being re-applied has the possibility of generating conflicts.
This means if you have 25 commits in your branch, and you're rebasing with master, that's 25 opportunities to generate conflicts. You may have to fix similar conflicts several times as git rebases your changes.
This kind of sucks at first. Rebasin' ain't easy, but it feels right. And once you get used to it, you'll never want to go back.