Menu

Git merge strategy recursive theirs

3 Comments

git merge strategy recursive theirs

Otherwise it remains on the current branch. If you are currently not on any branch or if the current branch does not have a configured upstream, the rebase will abort. HEAD or git log HEADif --root is specified. The commits that were previously saved into the temporary area are then reapplied to the current branch, one by one, in order. Note that any commits in HEAD which introduce the same textual changes as a commit in HEAD.

It is possible that a merge failure will prevent this process from being completely automatic. You will have to resolve any such merge failure and run git rebase --continue. Another option is to bypass the commit that caused the merge failure with git rebase --skip. The latter form is just a short-hand of git checkout topic followed by git rebase master. When rebase exits topic will remain the checked-out branch. If the upstream branch already contains a change you have made e.

For example, running git rebase master on the following history in which A' and A introduce the same set of changes, but have different committer information:. Here is how you would transplant a topic branch based on one branch to another, to pretend that you forked the topic branch from the latter branch, git rebase --onto. For example, a feature developed in topic depends on some functionality which is found in next.

We want to make topic forked from branch master ; for example, because git functionality on which topic git was merged into the more stable master branch. We want our tree to look like this:. Another example of --onto option is to rebase part of a branch. If we have theirs following situation:. This is useful if F and G were flawed in some way, or should not be part of topicA. In case of conflict, git rebase will stop at the first problematic commit and leave conflict markers in the tree.

For each file you edit, you need to tell Git that the conflict has been resolved, typically this would be done with. After resolving the conflict manually and updating the index with the desired resolution, you can continue the rebasing process with.

Starting point at which to create the new commits. May be any valid commit, and not just an existing branch name. As a special case, you may use "A B" as a shortcut for the merge base of A and B if there is exactly one merge base. You can leave out at most one of A and B, in which case it defaults to HEAD. Upstream branch to compare against. May be any valid commit, recursive just an existing branch name.

Defaults to the configured upstream for the current branch. Abort the rebase operation and reset HEAD to the original branch. Otherwise HEAD will be reset to where it was when the rebase operation was started. Use merging strategies to rebase. When the recursive default merge strategy is used, this allows rebase to be aware of strategy on the upstream side. In other words, the sides are swapped. Use the given merge strategy.

If there is no -s option git merge-recursive is used instead. This implies --merge and, if no strategy has been specified, -s recursive. Note the reversal of ours and theirs as noted above for the -m option. Show a diffstat of what changed upstream since the last rebase. The diffstat is also controlled by the configuration option rebase. Allows the pre-rebase hook to run, which is the default.

This option can recursive used to override --no-verify. When fewer lines of surrounding context exist they all must match. By default no context is ever ignored. Force the rebase even if the current branch is a descendant of the commit you are rebasing onto.

Normally non-interactive rebase will exit with the message "Current branch is up to date" in such a situation. Incompatible with the --interactive option. You may find this or --no-ff with an interactive rebase helpful after reverting a topic branch merge, as this option recreates the topic branch with fresh commits so it can be remerged successfully without needing to "revert the reversion" see the revert-a-faulty-merge How-To for details.

These flag are passed to the git apply program see git-apply[1] that applies the patch. These flags are passed to git am to easily change the dates of the rebased commits see git-am[1].

Make a list of the commits which are about to be rebased. Let the user edit that list before rebasing. This mode can also be used to split commits see SPLITTING COMMITS below. This uses the --interactive machinery internally, but combining it with the --interactive option explicitly is generally not a good idea unless you know what you are doing see BUGS below.

You may merge several commands by either using one instance of --exec with several commands:. This allows you to rebase the root commit s on a branch. When the commit log message begins with "squash! If the --autosquash option is enabled by default using the configuration variable rebase.

With --interactive, cherry-pick all rebased commits instead of fast-forwarding over the unchanged ones. This ensures that the entire history of the rebased branch is composed of new commits. You may find this helpful after reverting a topic branch merge, as this option recreates the topic branch with fresh commits so it can be remerged successfully without needing to "revert the reversion" see the revert-a-faulty-merge How-To for details.

Git merge mechanism git-merge and git-pull commands allows the backend merge strategies to be chosen with -s option. This can only resolve two heads i.

It tries to carefully detect criss-cross merge ambiguities and is considered generally safe and fast. This can only resolve two heads using a 3-way merge algorithm. When there is more than one common ancestor that can be used for 3-way merge, it creates a merged tree of the common ancestors and uses that as the reference tree for the 3-way merge.

This has been reported to result in fewer merge conflicts without causing mis-merges by tests done on actual merge commits taken from Linux 2. Additionally this can detect and handle merges involving renames. This is the default merge strategy when pulling or merging one branch. This option forces conflicting hunks to be auto-resolved cleanly by favoring our version.

Changes from the other tree that do not conflict with our side are reflected to the merge result. For a binary file, the entire contents are taken from our side. This should not be confused with the ours merge strategy, which does not even look at what the other tree contains at all.

It discards everything the other tree did, declaring our history contains all that happened in it. With this option, merge-recursive spends a little extra time to avoid theirs that sometimes occur due to unimportant matching lines e.

Use this when the branches to be merged have diverged wildly. See also git-diff[1] --patience. Treats lines with the indicated type of whitespace change as unchanged for the sake of a three-way merge.

Whitespace changes mixed with other changes to a line are not ignored. See also git-diff[1] -b-wand --ignore-space-at-eol. If their version only introduces whitespace changes to a line, our version is used. If our version introduces whitespace changes but their version includes a substantial change, their version is used.

This runs a virtual check-out and check-in of all three stages of a file when resolving a three-way merge. This option is meant to be used when merging branches with different clean filters or end-of-line normalization rules. Disables the renormalize option. This overrides the merge. Controls the similarity threshold used for rename detection. See also git-diff[1] -M. This option is a more advanced form of subtree strategy, where the strategy makes a guess on how two trees must be shifted to match with each other when merging.

Instead, the specified path is prefixed or stripped from the beginning to make the shape of two trees to match. This resolves cases with more than two heads, but refuses to do a complex merge that needs manual resolution. It is primarily meant to be used for bundling topic branch heads together. This is the default merge strategy when pulling or merging more than one branch.

This resolves any number of heads, but the resulting tree of the merge is always that of the current branch head, effectively ignoring all changes from all other branches.

It is meant to be merge to supersede old development history of side branches. Note that this is different from the -Xours option to the recursive merge strategy. This is a modified recursive strategy. When merging trees A and B, if B corresponds to a subtree of A, B is first adjusted to match the tree structure of A, instead of reading the trees at the same level. This adjustment is also done to the common ancestor tree. You should understand the implications of using git rebase on a repository that you share.

When the git-rebase command is run, it will first execute a "pre-rebase" hook if one exists. Please see the template pre-rebase hook script for an example. Rebasing interactively means that you have a chance to edit the commits which are rebased. You can reorder the commits, and you can remove them weeding out bad or otherwise unwanted patches. Sometimes the thing fixed in b. That is exactly what interactive rebase is for: An editor will be fired up with all the commits in your current branch ignoring merge commitswhich come after the given commit.

The list looks more or less like this:. The oneline descriptions are purely for your pleasure; git rebase will not look at them but at the commit names "deadbee" and "fa1afe1" in this exampleso do not delete or edit the names. If you just want to edit the commit message for a commit, replace the command "pick" with the command "reword".

If you want to fold two or more commits into one, replace the command "pick" for the second and subsequent commits with "squash" or "fixup". If the commits had different authors, the folded commit will be attributed to the author of the first commit.

The suggested commit message for the folded commit is the concatenation of the commit messages of the first commit and of those with the "squash" command, but omits the commit messages of commits with the "fixup" command. To achieve that, you would call git rebase recursive this:. Suppose you want to rebase the side branch starting at "A" to "Q". Make sure that the current HEAD is "B", and call. Reordering and editing commits usually creates untested intermediate steps.

You may want to check theirs your history editing did not break anything by running a test, or at least recompiling at intermediate points in history by using the "exec" command shortcut "x". You may do so by creating a todo list like this one:.

The interactive rebase will stop when a command fails i. You can continue with git rebase --continue. The command is run from the root of the working tree. This command lets you check that intermediate commits are compilable. The todo list becomes like that:.

In interactive mode, you can mark commits with the action "edit". However, this does not necessarily mean that git rebase expects the result of this edit to be exactly one commit. Indeed, you can undo the commit, or you can add other commits. This can be used to split a commit into two:. In fact, any commit range will do, as long strategy it contains that commit. The effect is that the HEAD is rewound by one, and the index follows suit. However, the working tree stays the same.

Now add the changes to the index that you want to have in the first commit. You can use git add possibly interactively or git gui or both to do that. If you are theirs absolutely sure that the intermediate revisions are consistent they compile, pass the testsuite, etc. Rebasing or any other form of rewriting a branch that others have based work on is a bad idea: The real fix, however, would be to avoid rebasing the upstream in the first place. To illustrate, suppose you are in a situation where someone develops a subsystem branch, and you are working on a topic that merge dependent on this subsystem.

You might end up with a history like the following:. If you now continue development as usual, and eventually merge topic to subsystemthe commits from subsystem will remain duplicated forever:.

Such duplicates are generally frowned upon because they clutter up history, making it harder to follow. To clean things up, you need to transplant the commits on topic to the new subsystem tip, i. This becomes a ripple effect: This happens if the subsystem rebase had merge, or used --interactive to omit, edit, squash, or fixup commits; or if the upstream used one of commit --amendresetor filter-branch. Only works if the changes patch IDs based on the diff contents on subsystem are literally the same before and after the rebase subsystem did.

In that case, the fix is easy because git rebase knows to skip changes that are already present in the new upstream. Things get more complicated if the subsystem changes do not exactly correspond to the ones before the rebase.

The idea is to manually tell git rebase "where the old subsystem ended and your topic began", that is, what the old merge-base between them was. You will have to find a way to name the last commit of the old subsystemfor example:. With the subsystem reflog: Subsequent fetches will increase the number. Relative to the tip of topic: You can then transplant the old subsystem.

Strategy ripple effect of a "hard case" recovery is especially bad: The todo list presented by --preserve-merges --interactive does not represent the topology of the revision graph. Editing commits and rewording their commit messages should work fine, but attempts to reorder commits tend to produce counterintuitive results. Inspection and Comparison show log diff shortlog describe Patching apply cherry-pick diff rebase revert Debugging bisect blame grep Email am apply format-patch send-email request-pull External Systems svn fast-import Server Admin daemon update-server-info.

Guides gitattributes Everyday Git Glossary gitignore gitmodules Revisions Tutorial Workflows Administration clean gc fsck reflog filter-branch instaweb archive bundle Plumbing Commands cat-file check-ignore commit-tree count-objects diff-index for-each-ref hash-object ls-files merge-base read-tree recursive rev-parse show-ref symbolic-ref update-index update-ref verify-pack write-tree.

Changes in the git-rebase manual 2. NAME git-rebase - Forward-port local commits to the updated upstream head. Assume the following history exists and the current branch is "topic": For example, running git rebase master on the following history in which A' and A introduce the same set of changes, but have different committer information: We want our tree to look like this: If we have the following situation: A range of commits could also be removed with rebase.

You strategy execute several commands by either using one instance of --exec with several commands: This option is only valid when the --interactive option is used. The recursive strategy can take the following options: If their version only introduces whitespace changes to a line, our version is used; If our version introduces whitespace changes but their version includes a substantial change, their version is used; Otherwise, the merge proceeds in the usual way.

NOTES You should understand the implications of using git rebase on a repository that you share. The list looks more or less like this: To achieve that, you would call git rebase like this: You may do so by creating a todo list like this one: The todo list becomes like that: SPLITTING COMMITS In interactive mode, you can mark commits with the action "edit".

This can be used to split a commit into two: Mark the commit you want to split with the action "edit". Commit the now-current index with whatever commit message is appropriate now. Repeat the last two steps until your working tree is clean. Continue the rebase with git rebase --continue. You might end up with a history like the following: If subsystem is rebased against masterthe following happens: If you now continue development as usual, and eventually merge topic to subsystemthe commits from subsystem will remain duplicated forever: There are two kinds of fixes, discussed in the following subsections: The changes are literally the same.

This happens if the subsystem rebase was a simple rebase and had no conflicts. The changes are not the same. The easy case Only works if the changes patch IDs based on the diff contents on subsystem are literally the same before and after the rebase subsystem did.

The hard case Things get more complicated if the subsystem changes do not exactly correspond to the ones before the rebase. You will have to find a way to name the last commit of the old subsystemfor example: BUGS The todo list presented by --preserve-merges --interactive does not represent the topology of the revision graph.

GIT Part of the git[1] suite. This open sourced site is hosted on GitHub. Patches, suggestions and comments are welcome. While an "easy case recovery" sometimes appears to be successful even in the hard case, it may have unintended consequences. For example, a commit that was removed via git rebase --interactive will be resurrected!

git merge strategy recursive theirs

3 thoughts on “Git merge strategy recursive theirs”

  1. Andrey177 says:

    The city wagon bridge was built some years ago and while the loss on it is not as great as on the other bridge, it comes at an inopportune time and will be a matter of great inconvenience to the public.

  2. alexnaumoff says:

    Radhakrishnan, S (Trans.) (1995), Bhagvada Gita, Harper Collins, ISBN.

  3. adeptofthechaos says:

    Yes a phone along with other forms of technology gives people the freedom to communicate in just seconds, allows people to carry their favorite games and the internet wherever they go, but people have become too dependent on technology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *