I just tried this and obviously I'm doing something wrong. git checkout CURATOR-167 git pull git rebase -i origin/master
#This gives me a dialog with one commit with pick Save and exit #This gives a merge conflict and leaves me in a detached head state (I presume this is ok). Fix up the merge conflict git rebase --continue #This gives me a dialog to commit the changes Save and exit #Everything seems fine at this point. Builds ok, tests run ok. git push ! [rejected] CURATOR-167 -> CURATOR-167 (non-fast-forward) error: failed to push some refs to ' https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/curator.git' hint: Updates were rejected because the tip of your current branch is behind hint: its remote counterpart. Integrate the remote changes (e.g. hint: 'git pull ...') before pushing again. hint: See the 'Note about fast-forwards' in 'git push --help' for details. There have been no changes on the branch since I did the pull before the rebase. Any ideas? On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Mike, > Will give it a spin today some time. > cheers > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > >> if you're going to tray that, here's what you want to do (assuming command >> line) >> >> git checkout CURATOR-167 # start with the branch that you are changing >> git rebase -i master # rebase the current branch on top of the given >> branch >> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected] >> > >> wrote: >> >> > Scott, >> > I've been using a similar approach to Jordan given that's what I'm used >> to, >> > but I'm happy to try your approach. I'm going to try and fix up >> CURATOR-167 >> > as it will no longer cleanly merge (it's been sitting there a while). >> So, I >> > should rebase master into the CURATOR-167 branch? >> > cheers >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > LOL! So sorry to hear that. Yeah, it's definitely possible to mess >> > > things up badly. If I'm doing something particularly risky, I'll just >> > "git >> > > branch original" before I start, so as to leave a branch pointer at my >> > > start point as a safe recovery if it goes south. I also use gitk to >> > > visualize sometimes. >> > > >> > > Another major selling point for rebase (-i) is that it's *really* >> hard to >> > > merge the wrong branch. If the list of commits that comes up doesn't >> > look >> > > basically correct, you probably did something wrong-- trying to rebase >> > onto >> > > the wrong branch will give you tons of commits, most of which aren't >> > yours. >> > > >> > > I think what you've been doing is fine, it's definitely the right >> > approach >> > > if you're doing a merge strategy! I've just ended up gravitating to a >> > > rebase strategy over the years for the reasons I've mentioned. >> > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> > > [email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> I’ll admit that rebase terrifies me. I’ve f’d up several projects >> with >> > it >> > >> so I can’t even type the letters without breaking into a sweat. "git >> > rebase >> > >> -i” is a lot safer, though. Here’s what I’ve been doing - let me >> know if >> > >> it’s OK. For branches that are off of CURATOR-3.0, I never merge >> > master. I >> > >> only merge CURATOR-3.0: “git merge CURATOR-3.0”. In fact, should we >> > have a >> > >> branch naming scheme to enforce this? >> > >> >> > >> -Jordan >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On August 24, 2015 at 11:30:50 AM, Scott Blum ( >> [email protected]) >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Correct. When I say "main" branch vs. "feature" branch I just mean >> the >> > >> stable branch everyone is working against (3.0 or master) vs. a >> feature >> > >> branch where you're actively working. >> > >> >> > >> You'll get to a point in development where you'll think "Hey, there >> are >> > >> changes on the main branch I'm working against that I really need to >> > pull >> > >> into my feature branch." At that point (particularly if you have an >> svn >> > >> background) you'll be tempted to merge the main branch into your >> feature >> > >> branch. I would suggest not doing that, as it makes the history very >> > muddy >> > >> to follow. Instead, my workflow is usually more like this: >> > >> >> > >> Suppose I'm working on CURATOR-218. It was originally branched off >> 3.0, >> > >> and I want to pull in new changes. >> > >> >> > >> git remote update >> > >> git rebase -i origin/CURATOR-3.0 >> > >> >> > >> This pulls up an editor that gives me the list of commits to rebase. >> I >> > >> would typically exit out of the editor to at this point to accept the >> > >> commit list, but if I'm so inclined, I'll do things like reorder the >> > list, >> > >> or squash commits like like "wip" or "minor reformat" into a more >> > curated >> > >> set of logical commits. >> > >> >> > >> Once you exit the editor, git goes through and applies each commit, >> one >> > at >> > >> a time, to the head of the target branch. It's like picking up your >> > commit >> > >> chain and dumping it at the end of the target branch, as if all your >> > work >> > >> had been done against what's now the head of that branch. You'll may >> > have >> > >> to fix conflicts along the way, but usually not much more than if you >> > did >> > >> it as a merge. >> > >> >> > >> I'd encourage us to try this out a couple times and get a feel for >> the >> > >> rebase flow. It's a little more to get your head around at first, but >> > the >> > >> upside is you end up with really easy to follow commit histories, >> which >> > >> makes it way easier to untangle problems later if they crop up. >> > >> >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> > >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > Can you explain this in detail? For me, I have some features that >> are >> > >> > 3.0.0 based so I’m treating CURATOR-3.0 as a kind of master. The >> true >> > >> > “master” is Curator 2.x only, right? >> > >> > >> > >> > -Jordan >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On August 24, 2015 at 11:10:08 AM, Scott Blum ( >> [email protected] >> > ) >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > BTW: I noticed a couple of new commits >> > >> > (ba4b5d8cb1f9733d3901b0b619528454d3dbf8c8 >> > >> > & 2343daf29388566b0efa0b0a2ad21574fb534a27) where 3.0 is getting >> > merged >> > >> > into feature branches. Almost every project I've been on we don't >> tend >> > >> to >> > >> > do that as it leads to confusing history (this isn't just >> aesthetic, >> > it >> > >> > can >> > >> > get harder for tooling to figure out what happened). If I want to >> pull >> > >> > changes from the main branch into my feature branch, I would >> typically >> > >> > *rebase* my feature branch against the main branch. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Scott Blum < >> [email protected]> >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > Yeah, 217 & 161 were the first two big things in 3.0. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> > >> > > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> OK - Also, is CURATOR-161 complete? The issue is still open in >> > Jira. >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> On August 24, 2015 at 12:47:21 AM, Cameron McKenzie ( >> > >> > >> [email protected]) wrote: >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> Yes, I merged it in last week some time. >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> > >> > >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > Scott, did CURATOR-217 get merged into the new CURATOR-3.0? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -Jordan >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
