#Rebase to master git update
#Rebase to master git code

#Rebase to master git update

You probably need to 'share it' for a pull request no problem, but you'll need force push to update it, and again, nobody else should push to that. ALWAYS rebase origin/shared-branch versus just shared-branch, so you rebase against the shared branch and can ignore your local version if you have one. In other words, always create a personal branch, then rebase against the shared branch. Now, having said that, you should continuously rebase your defect or feature that only you are working on. You can pencil out what a disaster it is to rebase shared branches. Even in the case where you are the ONLY developer, your attempt to push your sequential rebase changes will be rejected, and you must use the 'force' push option -f. That means a branch that two or more developers are changing. You cannot talk about rebase without making it very clear that you must NEVER rebase a shared branch. Of course, if you want to assert rearranging history isn't changing it, that's your prerogative. Krzysztof, you are wrong about rebase not changing history that's actually a fact not a misconception.

It's not worth it, and it is ultimately a lie.Д«est practices typically spread quickly and early when they make sense and particularly when they are trivial to achieve. To sum up, don't subvert git just because you want to see a straight line in your commit graph. With a rebase, those intermittent commits are almost useless, as the repo doesn't look like it did when they made that commit. Also, with multi-commit branches, you can see what the repo looked like after each commit. The context in which the developer was working has been lost. You can go to the merge just before the developer's first commit and see what the repo actually looked like when they started work. Reconstructing what a developer did 4 months ago is much simpler with a merge vs a rebase. I've run teams that have used git how you are describing, always making people use rebase (in this case it was because we were syncing to SVN). If you really want a straight-line for your repos, why aren't you using something like SVN? Is the distributed nature of git really the big selling factor? Yes, your repo looks messier, but it more accurately reflects the lifecycle of the code, and what the developer intended at each commit. Git rebase destroys the context of the commit, leaving basically a diff apply instead of the much more contextually rich merge commit. This doesn't show up on a smaller repo, but if you have a busy repo, with lots of contributers, untangling a mess becomes much harder if you no longer have the true parentage of a given commit.

The problem with rebase is that it corrupts the true history of the commits. Rebasing local history is OK (it's more than OK, it's sometimes necessary to maintain a clean history), but changing other people commits history is considered a bad practice. I DO NOT encourage rebasing remote (public or shared) branches. NOTE: Because of many discussions about this note. To get to the next batch of conflicts (if you have any). If you want to merge a feature branch it might be wiser to actually merge your commits thus having a single point of integration of two distinct branches.ДЄlso the conflict resolving will be now per commit basis, not everything-at-once, so you will have to use git rebase -continue The command will apply all your yet-to-be-pushed commits on top of the remote tree commits allowing your commits to be straight in a row and without branches (easier git bisects, yay!).ДЇew notes though. To keep the repository clean, your commits always on top of the tree until you push them to a remote server. You actually issuing git fetch + git merge commands, which will result with an extra commit and ugly merge bubbles in your commit log (check out gitk to see them). What you might not know is that by typing git pull

#Rebase to master git code

When working on a project you usually synchronize your code by pulling it several times a day.