alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 3 years agoHistory repeats itselflemmy.worldimagemessage-square14linkfedilinkarrow-up1328arrow-down114
arrow-up1314arrow-down1imageHistory repeats itselflemmy.worldalphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 3 years agomessage-square14linkfedilink
minus-squareThrowaway@lemm.eeBannedlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·3 years agoWhat you do is create a third branch off master, cherry pick the commits from the feature branch, and merge in the third branch. So much easier.
minus-squarefiah@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up0·3 years agofor some reason it’s easier than normal rebasing though
minus-squareyogo@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up0·3 years agoHave you tried interactive rebase (rebase -i)? I find it very useful
minus-squareThrowaway@lemm.eeBannedlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·3 years agoYeah, but then you deal with merge conflicts
minus-squaregedhrel@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·3 years agorerere is a lifesaver here. (I’m also a fan of rebasing; but I also like to land commits that perform a logical and separable chunk of work, because I like history to have decent narrative flow.)
minus-squaredukk@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·3 years agoYou can get merge conflicts in cherry picks too, it’s the same process.
What you do is create a third branch off master, cherry pick the commits from the feature branch, and merge in the third branch. So much easier.
That’s called rebasing
for some reason it’s easier than normal rebasing though
Have you tried interactive rebase (rebase -i)? I find it very useful
Yeah, but then you deal with merge conflicts
rerere is a lifesaver here.
(I’m also a fan of rebasing; but I also like to land commits that perform a logical and separable chunk of work, because I like history to have decent narrative flow.)
You can get merge conflicts in cherry picks too, it’s the same process.