[git-users] Re: Basic question: confusing messages with git merge
Hi Brad, The first merge commit there is a fairly typical occurrence: You have done some local commits, while the remote master branch has diverged (i.e. other commits have taken place there). Upon merging, Git cannot fast forward, so it creates a merge commit, saying it is merging the branch origin/master. This is not a nice merge commit. Merge commits are better (meaning more readable for humans) when they read like Merging new-feature-x to master. What you should do here in your workflow, is to *rebase* origin/master instead of merging it, because you want to put your local commits *after* the ones that have happened in origin/master. So, next time you have local commits, and you want to update, do this: 1) git fetch 2) git rebase origin/master Regarding the second, older merge commit, I'm not really sure how it came to be. It looks like you had a branch mis-named as origin, and did some merge master origin/origin or something. If you can remember what commands you where doing here, we might figure it out. Anyhow, I know this sounds tricky, and it is. Git's principle of remote branches is however very powerful when you get on top of it. I recommend reading these articles: - http://www.gitguys.com/topics/adding-and-removing-remote-branches/ - http://www.gitguys.com/topics/tracking-branches-and-remote-tracking-branches/ - Unfortunately, the above two articles don't mention rebasing, so look at this one: http://gitready.com/intermediate/2009/01/31/intro-to-rebase.htm Also, here's a nice command for seeing what your history looks like graphically (better yet, use some Git GUI tool for looking at the history): git log --graph --oneline --decorate --all -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/git-users/-/FYYYTAC7VtEJ. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
[git-users] Re: Basic question: confusing messages with git merge
Hi,
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 00:49:15 UTC+1, Brad wrote:
What do these things mean? I'd imagine that 'Merge remote-tracking branch
origin/master' should have been what happens when I type 'git merge
origin/master', but what about the other? Could 'Merge branch master,
remote-tracking branch origin' be what happens if I accidentally typed git
merge origin master? If I do this, what happens exactly?
Good guesswork!
One of git's merge algorithms is called an 'octopus merge', and merges more
than two branches together. When you run 'git merge origin master', the
fact that you named two branches (OK, 'origin' isn't a branch, but bear
with me) causes the octopus merge algorithm to be invoked.
However, this algorithm is pretty old, no-one really uses it any more, and
it's normally regarded as nothing more than a curiosity. Therefore it
doesn't receive much love, and has some rather odd corner cases and bugs.
One such corner case is when one of the branches it's given to merge isn't
a branch at all, and is instead the name of a remote. When this happens,
you get the message you described, and some other stuff -- an empty merge
commit I think? And I seem to recall there's another very strange oddness.
So, long story short, do not type 'git merge origin master'.
If you want an easier way to merge (with less typing) read on...
Do you know about git's branch tracking stuff? Basically, you can assign
each branch an 'upstream' branch (defined in git's config). When you run
'git pull', git will merge in this upstream branch by default. ('git push'
follows a different set of rules by default, although this might change.
Read push.default in man git-config for now).
When a branch has an upstream configured, '@{upstream}', or '@{u}' points
to that upstream branch. You can also see whether a branch has an upstream
by typing 'git branch -vv' -- the upstream appears in square brackets.
So, to configure an upstream (if you don't have one set already), use 'git
branch --set-upstream master origin/master', or 'git push -u origin master'
if you want to push at the same time.
Having done this, you can type 'git merge @{u}' (with master checked out)
to merge origin/master into master.
Hope that cleared up some confusion.
Antony
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git
for human beings group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/git-users/-/y9PMXsscTQgJ.
To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] Re: Basic question: confusing messages with git merge
From: Brad Malone To: git-users@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [git-users] Re: Basic question: confusing messages with git merge Thomas and Antony, Thank you both for taking time to write such detailed responses to my question! Now let me get to what you both have said individually. Thomas, Thanks for the notes on rebasing. From what I understood from reading git tutorials before was that rebasing was something which was usually nice to do whenever one has local changes (for which no commits have ever been made to the remote branch) so that the git history looks more linear. I have planned on using rebasing later on when my git usage becomes more complex, but currently I only work on my own private repo for which I *attempt* to always update before making local changes. So 99% of my work simply involves updating whatever local computer (I work on different computers) to the work that exists on my remote, doing my stuff, and then committing back. I believe that this current problem of mine is probably more due to the fact of an accidental 'git merge origin master' command. Antony, I'm glad you think that this may have been the problem (since I really would like to understand why it happened). I had seen the octopus merge when looking in the documentation and online and figured that what might have been what happened. What I did *not* know was that this was old and no one really uses it anymore. Glad to know this so I don't try to incorporate it into my workflow (presumably there would be no need anyway or other people would use it as well). Yes, I see empty merge commits when this sort of thing happens. I am familiar (although probably no expert) with tracking of remote branches. My local master branches are always set up to track origin/master (see 'git remote' command below) bmalone@papabear:~/repos/my_codes$ git remote show origin Password for 'https://gammapo...@bitbucket.org': * remote origin Fetch URL: https://gammapo...@bitbucket.org/GammaPoint/my_codes.git Push URL: https://gammapo...@bitbucket.org/GammaPoint/my_codes.git HEAD branch: master Remote branch: master tracked Local branch configured for 'git pull': master merges with remote master Local ref configured for 'git push': master pushes to master (local out of date) , and so technically I should be able to use 'git pull' and merge automatically. This is actually what I did when I started using git a couple weeks ago. However, the reason I stopped doing was twofold: 1). I found that when I used 'git pull' that if I used 'git status' I would always find out that my local branch was some number of commits ahead of origin/master (this was in fact unrelated to me having made any local commits). I think the cause of this was actually that 'git pull' doesn't update my local copy of where origin/master is (which is what 'git fetch' does I think). I suppose I could use 'git fetch' followed by 'git pull', but I wasn't sure if that was the correct thing to do, mostly because of reason #2. Edit: Also I think it is true that people say that 'git pull' IS equivalent to a fetch and then a merge, but this never seemed to be the case for me because origin/master position was never updated. If I have to type in something like 'git remote update origin' then it seems that 'git pull' isn't saving me any typing. I hope I am making sense here. This problem is discussed constantly online (see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4843881/updating-branches-using-git-pull and http://stackoverflow.com/questions/277077/why-is-git-telling-me-your-branch-is-ahead-of-origin-master-by-11-commits-a) but I haven't seen anyone answer it to much satisfaction. 2). This article: http://longair.net/blog/2009/04/16/git-fetch-and-merge/ suggests that one should fetch and then merge rather than pull. This made me think that the pair fetch/merge was the best replacement for pull, and since pull wasn't updating the position of origin/master, I stopped using it. Is this understanding I have correct? Thanks again, Brad Brad, One useful resource is http://ndpsoftware.com/git-cheatsheet.html#loc=remote_repo; (linked from http://git-scm.com/docs). It shows most of the different places that your data may be located at, and the commands between them. One of the areas that can confuse is the distinction between the true remote repository, and your local copy based on last time that particicular computer looked at it (e.g. upstream/master) . Clicking on Upstream column will show the commands that will transfer data between the upstream remote, and you are using Bitbucket as your common reference point. So you do need to remember to look at it i.e. 'fetch' immediately you start on the other computer, and at the end of the session, 'push' your latest and greatest back
