• andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Merge takes two commits and smooshes them together at their current state, and may require one commit to reconcile changes. Rebase takes a whole branch and moves it, as if you started working on it from a more recent base commit, and will ask you to reconcile changes as it replays history.

      • Elise@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m relatively new to git and rebase looks like a mess to me? Like it appears to be making duplicate commits and destroys the proper history?

        If you use rebase to get a more readable history, isn’t the issue the tool you use to view the history?

        I guess I have to try it out a few times to get it.

      • Crow@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s pretty cool, might actually do that. Tho, we currently don’t use the history as much anyways, we’re just having a couple of small student projects with the biggest group being 6 people. I guess it’s more useful if you’re actually making a real product in a huge project that has a large team behind it

        • ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          I wouldn’t recommend it. The Git documentation itself doesn’t recommend rebase for more than moving a few unpushed commits to the front of a branch you are updating. Using it by default instead of merge requires you to use --force-push as part of your workflow which can lead to confusing situations when multiple developers end up commiting to the same branch, and at worst can lead to catastrophic data loss. The only benefit is a cleaner history graph, which is rarely used anyway, and you can always make the history graph easier to read with a gui without incuring any of the problems of rebase.

          • surge_1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Bad take IMO,

            At 10+ YOE, I use rebase almost exclusively. Branch from main, rebase to clean up commit history before putting up a PR. If commits are curated properly you don’t run into conflicts very often. Branches really shouldn’t be shared too often anyway, and the ones that are should be write protected.

            Catastrophic data loss isn’t really possible either with git since it’s all preserved and you can git reflog even if you mess up.

            The meme is right. Git good

            • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Years of experience don’t really matter here, that’s just call to authority, in this case yourself. You might as well be the worst git user ever after 20 years of usage, or the best after 2. We don’t know that.

              Anyway, what you’re saying basically requires a perfect world to be true. Feature branch flow is perfectly fine, but you do end up with merge conflicts constantly, unless you have cordoned off areas of the repo for certain users. Two people working on unrelated features, both change a signature of some helper/util method, merge conflict. Nothing serious, can be fixed in a minute, and rebasing or merging won’t help for either.

              Merge is perfectly fine. And arguing about which strategy to use is one of those autistic debates we as an industry seemingly love to have. It doesn’t matter, but you’ll find people screaming at each other about it. See Emacs vs. Vi. Same crap.