How to Use Git Rebase to Merge Master into Your Branch
Battle dinosaurs in this epic action game! Purchase dinosaurs and merge like ones together to form new, stronger dinosaurs. Send your dinosaurs into battle and watch them hash it out with the enemy dinosaurs! See if you have what it takes to build the strongest army of dinosaurs!
Instead of just moving the branch pointer forward, Git creates a new snapshot that results from this three-way merge and automatically creates a new commit that points to it.This is referred to as a merge commit, and is special in that it has more than one parent.
merge master
This means the version in HEAD (your master branch, because that was what you had checked out when you ran your merge command) is the top part of that block (everything above the =======), while the version in your iss53 branch looks like everything in the bottom part.In order to resolve the conflict, you have to either choose one side or the other or merge the contents yourself.For instance, you might resolve this conflict by replacing the entire block with this:
After you exit the merge tool, Git asks you if the merge was successful.If you tell the script that it was, it stages the file to mark it as resolved for you.You can run git status again to verify that all conflicts have been resolved:
If you think it would be helpful to others looking at this merge in the future, you can modify this commit message with details about how you resolved the merge and explain why you did the changes you made if these are not obvious.
How to merge master into branch in git
Git merge master into main branch
What is the difference between merging master into branch and merging branch into master
Git merge master vs git rebase master
How to merge master into feature branch without conflicts
Git merge master into develop branch
Best practices for merging master into your branches
How to merge master into forked repository
Git merge master into current branch
How to undo a git merge master
Git merge master and squash commits
How to merge master into multiple branches at once
Git merge master into pull request branch
How to resolve conflicts when merging master into branch
Git merge master dry run
How to merge master into local branch
Git merge master no fast forward
How to merge master into another remote branch
Git merge master only changed files
How to merge master into release branch
Git merge master interactive
How to merge master into staging branch
Git merge master abort
How to merge master into production branch
Git merge master keep history
How to merge master into hotfix branch
Git merge master overwrite changes
How to merge master into working branch
Git merge master preserve authorship
How to merge master into detached head state
Git merge master skip tests
How to merge master into cherry-picked branch
Git merge master force push
How to merge master into submodule branch
Git merge master continue after conflict resolution
How to merge master into patch branch
Git merge master with tags
How to merge master into experimental branch
Git merge master verbose output
How to merge master into bugfix branch
PDF Merge tool alternatives and similar software[^8^]
Free disk partition software tools for merging partitions[^6^]
Merge Master Data Services models in SQL Server
Merge Master Pages in Adobe InDesign
Merge Master and Transactional Data in SAP
Merge Master and Detail Blocks in Oracle Forms
Merge Master and Working Copies in ArcGIS
Merge Master and Slave Databases in MySQL
Merge Master and Child Tables in Access
Merge Master and Branch Slides in PowerPoint
I want to know if I can merge master into test1, so I get the commits from master on test, and after I finish my feature on test1, merge that again to master. Is that possible? Or it will raise conflicts?
I want to know if I can merge MASTER into TEST1, so I get the commits from master on test, and after I finish my feature on test1, merge that again to MASTER. is that possible? or it will raise conflicts?
This moves the entire feature branch to begin on the tip of the main branch, effectively incorporating all of the new commits in main. But, instead of using a merge commit, rebasing re-writes the project history by creating brand new commits for each commit in the original branch.
The only way to synchronize the two main branches is to merge them back together, resulting in an extra merge commit and two sets of commits that contain the same changes (the original ones, and the ones from your rebased branch). Needless to say, this is a very confusing situation.
If you want to re-write the entire feature using this method, the git merge-base command can be useful to find the original base of the feature branch. The following returns the commit ID of the original base, which you can then pass to git rebase:
In the Conceptual Overview section, we saw how a feature branch can incorporate upstream changes from main using either git merge or git rebase. Merging is a safe option that preserves the entire history of your repository, while rebasing creates a linear history by moving your feature branch onto the tip of main.
On the other hand, if you want to preserve the complete history of your project and avoid the risk of re-writing public commits, you can stick with git merge. Either option is perfectly valid, but at least now you have the option of leveraging the benefits of git rebase.
Git is a version control system that allows users to work in several development lines called branches. The master (or main) branch is usually the default branch in a repository, created by default by the git init command.
The master branch is just like any other branch in Git. It is not special in any way other than the fact it is created by default when initializing the repository. However, since all development starts from the master branch, be cautious when merging it into other branches.
This tutorial showed how to merge the master branch into another branch using git merge and git rebase. Both commands perform the same action, but in different ways, making them suitable for different situations.
If you want to preserve merge commits during the rebase for the sake of keeping them in the branch history, click Modify options and choose --preserve-merges (this option is unavailable for interactive rebase).
And, only a few branches should be allowed to merge into master, namely the hotfix and releases branch. But, there are always exceptions to the rule. This tutorial will show developers an example of how to merge the GitLab master into another branch.
There are two acceptable ways with GitLab to merge the master branch into another. Which approach a developer chooses will depend whether the branch they want master to merge into is protected or not.
Since the release branch is protected, the process is a little different. If a developer wants to merge the GitLab master into a protected branch, the proper approach is to perform a merge request. Simply log into the GitLab web app, choose the option to create a GitLab merge request, specify the master branch as the source and the protected branch as the target of the merge.
After the merge request is submitted, the assignee will be notified of the request the next time they log in. If the merge request is approved without conflict, the GitLab master will merge into the branch, and both the master and release branches will be in sync.
To add changes from one branch to another branch, you can merge the branches. To apply changes to your branch from another branch in the same repository, you can merge the other branch into your branch on GitHub Desktop. To request that changes from your branch are merged into another branch, in the same repository or in another repository in the network, you can create a pull request on GitHub Desktop. For more information, see "Merging another branch into your project branch" and "About pull requests."
Note: If there are merge conflicts, GitHub Desktop will warn you above the Merge BRANCH into BRANCH button. You will not be able to merge the branches until you have resolved all conflicts.
Note: If there are merge conflicts, GitHub Desktop will warn you above the Squash and merge button. You will not be able to squash and merge the branch until you have resolved all conflicts.
Broken master. This can happen when CI pipelines run on the master branch, but don'tpass all tests. A red cross mark is shown in the project's top page, signalling unstable sourcecode and eroding the trust of users. Broken master could also be a blocker againsta continuous deployment/delivery stream line in which deployment jobsare executed after the test stage passed in master pipelines.
Let's say you're one of the maintainers of a project. It's a busy repository with hundreds of mergesto master every day. A developer assigns a merge request (MR) to you. The MR passed all of the tests in the CI pipelines,has been reviewed thoroughly by code reviewers, all open discussions have been resolved, and the MR has beenapproved by the relevant code owners.
You would press the "Merge" button without a second thought, but how are you confident thata pipeline running on master branch after the merge will pass all tests again?If your answer is "It might break the master branch," thenyou're right. This could happen, for example, if master has advanced by somenew commits, and one of them changed a lint rule. The MR in questionstill contains an invalid coding style, but the latest pipeline on the MR passes,because the feature branch is based on an old version of master.
Let's break down what went wrong in the scenario above. Even though the pipeline on themerge request passed all the tests, it ran on a source (feature) branchwhich could be based on an outdated version of master. In such a case,the result of pipeline is considered as untrusted, because there may be a huge differencebetween an actual-and-future merge commit and the commit in question.
As a boring solution, developers can continually rebase their MRon the latest master, but this is annoying and inefficient, given the speed ofgrowth of the master branch.It causes a lot of friction between developers and maintainers, slowing down the development cycle.
Simply put, the main difference between pipelines for merged results and normal pipelines is thatpipelines run on merge commits, instead of source branches, before the actual merge happens.This merge commit is generated from the latest commits of target branch andsource branch and written in a temporary place (refs/merge-requests/:iid/merge).Therefore, we can run a pipeline on it without interfering with master.
As a bonus, this workflow freeds developers from continualrebasing of their merge requests.All they need to do is develop features with Pipelines for Merged Results.GitLab automatically creates an expected merge commit and validates the merge request prior toan actual merge.
Note: If your .gitlab-ci.yml is too complex, you might stumble at the first point.We're currently working on improving the usability of Pipelines for merge requests.Please leave your feedback in the issue if that's the case.
Later on, it turns out that MR-2 contains a coding offence which has just been introduced by MR-1.Maintainers hit merge without knowing that, andneedless to say, this will result in broken master. How can we handle this race condition properly?
In GitLab 12.1, we introduced a new feature,Merge Trains.Basically, a Merge Train is a queueing system that allows you to avoid this kindof race condition.All you need to do is add merge requests to the merge train, and ithandles the rest of the work for you.It creates merge commits accordingto the sequence of merge requests and runs pipelines on the expected merge commits.For example, John and Cathy could have avoided broken master with the following workflow:
As you can see, the Merge Train successfully rejected MR-2 before it could break the masterbranch. With this workflow, maintainers can feel more confident when theydecide to merge something. Also, this doesn't slow down development lifecyclethat pipelines are built on optimistic assumption that, in the above case,the pipeline in MR-1 and the pipeline in MR-2 start almost simultaneously.MR-2 builds a merge commit as if MR-1 has already been merged, so that maintainersdon't need to wait for long time until each pipeline finished. If one of thepipelines failed, the problematic merge request is dropped from the merge trainand the train will be reconstructed without it.