Other letters mean commits I might reference by name. Feel free to share your own rebase experiences in the comments. 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! If I might reference a merge by name, I'll call it something like M1. Yes, your repo looks messier, but it more accurately reflects the lifecycle of the code, and what the developer intended at each commit. Delta compression using up to 2 threads.
The rule of thumb is never force push. Anyone that pulls down the repository will see a completely linear history, making it easier to understand. Like any tool, if misused, it can also cause some serious headaches. Will you have to do the git reset --soft song and dance and try again on a new branch? Note that the local branch and the remote branch that tracks can have different names. This removes some of the risk involved because if you pull, rebase, and then someone else pushes a new commit, --force-with-lease will fail instead of overwriting the new commit. But when I switch back to sync, all the fetched commits are still shown as waiting.
When you do git pull what I consider as evil, anyone else? What you actually care about was the developers intent? Because it is a fast-forward even for the remote , no force push is needed; that is, every commit that the remote ever saw as part of v1. Also, with multi-commit branches, you can see what the repo looked like after each commit. By pulling, you're telling Git that you want the old commits and the new commits. It's your own history until you push it somewhere. Reconstructing what a developer did 4 months ago is much simpler with a merge vs a rebase. Get the number of commits from the start of your branch.
In the real world, my workflow would be slightly different, as I would have to account for other people making changes to our shared repository my origin remote. So why are people afraid? This might be somewhat confusing. The fetching just downloads all objects from remote repo, that is by default called origin. Or are there really two different local master branches? Just doing a simple git rebase production from my-feature-branch will not work, as it will move commits 3 through 6 to production, effectively merging master into production. It's not worth it, and it is ultimately a lie.
So my advice - unless you know exactly what you are getting from the remote branch, don't use 'git pull'. You could build your workflow around the optimistic assumption that v1. I feel like you misread something once, and got these two completely ass-backwards. Of course, if you want to assert rearranging history isn't changing it, that's your prerogative. So what are the drawbacks? I propose a clean history is more valuable than one that is hard to understand. Is the distributed nature of git really the big selling factor? Make sure the final commit is buildable and all tests pass.
When the feature is complete, it is merged back with develop. You are already using merge to bring the changes through into master. Here is the second problem; did you push your branch to origin before you did this rebase? But as you say, because master already contained all of the commits on v1. Whether avoiding merge commits is desirable, or a reasonable use of rebase is pretty contentious, but it is a pretty common work flow, so it's, at least arguably, a reasonable approach. If it happens so that the issue is still not done, I continue working on that branch and all subsequent merges are --no-ff without rebasing. That means you have to know what thing to tell it to do. Last one in is the one responsible for making sure code works with existing.
After the erroneous rebase, in the git history for v1. GitHub did not create Git. Do you have frequent, concurrent changes to old versions of your product? So they have to use some git foo to reconcile your changes locally. You can use git bisect when trying to find the source of a bug. Someone else also created a different feature from master as well.
I had to facepalm myself when I realized the issue I was seeing was from people doing a rebase of master from a branch and then pushing which is where issues really crop up from the history being changed. This includes both code snippets embedded in the card text and code that is included as a file attachment. In my initial overview, I demonstrated creating a branch, making a couple commits to that branch, and then merging them back into master. My two recent unshared commits are at the top of the history, and the rest is the history of master when I originally checked out this branch. We have specific branches that we don't typically allow force pushing to develop and master so those aren't usually rebased. Can I just blame it being too early in the morning ; I'm going to retract delete my above comments. This is really important to get a grip on and can help you resolve conflicts much more quickly.