hopanna.blogg.se - Git rebase upstream

#Git rebase upstream how to#
#Git rebase upstream update#

I think (without much real knowledge) is that the fork needs to be rebased and pushed first, then the PR.

#Git rebase upstream how to#

After the fork is rebased I switch to my PR branch, reopen the terminal and follow this How to rebase a GitHub pull request - Aurelien Navarre () but use “main” not “master”. Our tutorial will get you started using git upstream and forks to maintain a common repository. What I do to rebase without errors (using the gihub desktop is open the terminal and follow this Git - How to Rebase a Fork (). Git upstreams are key to keeping track of project changes. Then I refork the repository and edit the files and resubmit the PR. It's a great tool, but don't rebase commits other developers have based work on. Unlike the Git merge command, rebase involves rewriting your project history. This will close the PR (if there is a lot of conversation you could link of copy to your new one). Dave McKay Dec 12, 2022, 12:00 pm EDT 7 min read fatmawati achmad zaenuri/ The Git rebase command moves a branch to a new location at the head of another branch.

This has the exact same effect as git reset -hard (or <. To avoid a lot of rework, I save the file(s) I modified somewhere else, delete the fork (which is also hard to find how). The current branch is reset to , or if the -onto option was supplied.

There may be smarter ways, but my current strategy if I screw-up is to delete my fork and start over.

In its default mode, git pull is shorthand for git fetch followed by git merge FETCHHEAD. I have had your problem and many others (particularly that in the signoff the email address needs to be in “” -if it is shown as a link it will not work). Incorporates changes from a remote repository into the current branch.

Last but not least, explain me what is the correct way to rebase to avoid this in the future ?Īnd, yes of course i tried googling it but i came up with 5 or 6 possible solutions and i do not want to try them all out because that for sure is going to make it worse.Īs a relative Noob, github has kindly provided endless hours of frustration. git rebase upstream/thebranch This will change the history of your branch that you used in the PR.

Showing me how to fix my branch so it only shows my commits, not everybody elses.

Removing all those review requests to not annoy about everyone who ever committed to the project, it seems i cant do that myself.

I would really appreciate if someone could help me out with: But with a rebase, from what i know about git, this should not have happened.

#Git rebase upstream update#

I had this problem once earlier when is tried to update my branch via the github gui, which as i learned does a merge instead of a rebase. When i pushed to my branch, i have now hundreds of commits showing as mine (seemingly all commits since i last rebased) and also hundreds of review requests on my PR. Updating to newer upstream It automatically discards commits cherry-picked to/from upstream, resulting in a shortest possible branch tracking our own changes. I was thinking about using custom tags in my fork, but these would be kind of "lost" with every rebase.For #14186 i had to rebase my fork and development branch to the latest version of openhab-addons to get rid of some build errors.įrom what i can remember, I did this by: git checkout main (go to the main of my fork) I feel like the whole process needs a bit of improvement.

If everything is fine, I repeat the same process but this time I rebase fork's master against upstream master (sometimes I simply reset -hard master to staging).

After that, a k8s deployment is restarted and the new changes are available in the staging environment. This results in a GitLab pipeline which builds a Docker image and pushes it to a Docker repo with staging tag.

If yes, then I rebase staging first (staging also contains all these additional commits).Every now and then I check if anything new has been released in the upstream repository.The fork has the master branch with these additional commits and another branch that acts like a staging branch (let's call it staging). There is no git merge alternative for cleaning up local commits with an interactive rebase.

Currently the setup looks like the following: Recently, I have been wondering what would be the best approach of incorporating upstream changes into the fork. The fork contains several additional commits with custom features - nothing fancy. I have a repository, which is a fork of a public project.