Comment by politelemon
2 months ago
This marker branch step feels like a workaround to a missing capability. It's something I can easily see one forgetting especially if they haven't been doing stacked diff workflows regularly.
2 months ago
This marker branch step feels like a workaround to a missing capability. It's something I can easily see one forgetting especially if they haven't been doing stacked diff workflows regularly.
The capability is there.
Just use git rebase --update-refs ...
Wow you aren't wrong, the first blog post on Google talking about this is exactly what this complicated method does just built-in.
To be fair --update-refs was only added in git 2.38 (released in 2022) so it’s likely that OPs workflow came about before this flag was introduced.
I agree it seems error prone. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding something, but I use `git cherry-pick` when I know I need to move commits around that might have conflicts. The problem with rebase can be that the user doesn't fully understand all the options being applied and end up with a "bad" merge.
I don't usually want to rewrite history. I just want the target branch with all my commits on top (I usually squash the feature branch into one commit anyway). I have yet to run into a situation where this isn't good enough.
If the branch diverges so much and has so many commits that this simpler approach doesn't work, that might not be a git problem, but a project management one. It's still always nice to know git has tools to get me out of a jam.
Rebase is just automated cherry-pick, so it ends being the same. The pick command in rebase is exactly that.
> and end up with a "bad" merge.
They end up with exactly the same merge when using cherry-pick directly?
> I don't usually want to rewrite history. I just want the target branch with all my commits on top
That's ... what rewriting history is?