I've been searching but I've not found anyone else asking about this. In
my workflow I tend to do a bunch of work on a topic branch, merge it to
master, then do some other things and come back a few weeks later and pick
it up again. Obviously when I start working on it again I want to start
with the current master HEAD, not with the content that existed on the
branch prior to my merge to master: master now contains all the code from
my topic branch, plus all the new code people have added, already merged
and ready to go.
Certainly I can merge again from master back to my topic branch, but this
creates a new commit on my topic branch for the merge. This seems
unnecessary to me. I believe I'd prefer to reset my branch to master after
I merge it, so that when I merge from master it does a fast-forward, until
I decide to start working and make changes on the branch. Does this make
sense? How do other people handle this situation? Do people just do the
merge and accept the extra commit? We have a number of developers making
lots of changes and our git repo is REALLY complicated (I can rarely make
any sense out of gitk etc. as there are so many branches all over the
place). This model seems to add to that confusion (for me).
Or do people delete their topic branch after the merge and re-create it
I've tried a "git reset --hard master" and that works for my local branch,
but I've had trouble figuring out how to deal with the remote branches (I
need to push my local branches to our main repo so it can undergo code
review etc. before merging to master).
Thoughts about this situation are welcome;
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git
for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.