[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Omaha.pm] [OMG!Code] git merge, I love you

>>For when my local copy is "old" and I'm "catching up" to something authoritative. 

Got it. When I want to merge from the authoritative version regardless of my changes, I do something like the following:

git merge --no-ff -s recursive -X theirs <remoteName> <branchName>

The -X theirs says to resolve any conflicts by simply using their copy. But of course we know there's more than one way to do it.


>>so I'm 'git flux' compatible (http://sartak.org/drafts/git-flux.html) 

Interesting. We've been using git-flow for our branching model ( http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ ) and I have to say it's been pretty darn good. When merging in a feature branch, we delete it right away. There's no good reason to keep them around after you've merged them.

Michael



On Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:22:14 AM UTC-5, Jay Hannah wrote:
On Jul 24, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Michael Kolakowski <mkol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you explain why you did a fast forward only merge? I almost always do my merges/pulls as --no-ff in order to preserve history, especially when it comes to branches. At least that's how I understood things to work.

I always use one of these two:

--no-ff    make damn sure I get an explicit commit. I always do this in local branch merges so I'm 'git flux' compatible (http://sartak.org/drafts/git-flux.html)

--ff-only  make damn sure I don't get an explicit commit. For when my local copy is "old" and I'm "catching up" to something authoritative.

"hey git: Don't guess or be clever -- I'm expecting X, so if X is not possible just say so and exit without doing anything."

I don't know if this is Right, Wrong, or Indifferent...  :)

Discussing with Nick Nisi at Coworking Wednesday yesterday we talked about:

> git remote add abw git@github.com:abw/Template2.git

'upstream' might have been the "Correct" conventional name for that (not 'abw').

> git merge --ff-only abw/master

In that exact scenario

   git rebase abw/master

would have done the same thing. We think. Untested.  :)

"git is easy!"   lol

j