@@ -187,12 +187,15 @@ If you have an issue that spans across multiple repositories, the best thing is
...
@@ -187,12 +187,15 @@ If you have an issue that spans across multiple repositories, the best thing is
With git you can use an interactive rebase (`rebase -i`) to squash multiple commits into one and reorder them.
With git you can use an interactive rebase (`rebase -i`) to squash multiple commits into one and reorder them.
In GitLab EE and .com you can also [rebase before merge](http://doc.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/rebase_before_merge.html) from the web interface.
This functionality is useful if you made a couple of commits for small changes during development and want to replace them with a single commit or if you want to make the order more logical.
This functionality is useful if you made a couple of commits for small changes during development and want to replace them with a single commit or if you want to make the order more logical.
However you should never rebase commits you have pushed to a remote server.
However you should never rebase commits you have pushed to a remote server.
Somebody can have referred to the commits or cherry-picked them.
Somebody can have referred to the commits or cherry-picked them.
When you rebase you change the identifier (SHA-1) of the commit and this is confusing.
When you rebase you change the identifier (SHA-1) of the commit and this is confusing.
If you do that the same change will be known under multiple identifiers and this can cause much confusion.
If you do that the same change will be known under multiple identifiers and this can cause much confusion.
If people already reviewed your code it will be hard for them to review only the improvements you made since then if you have rebased everything into one commit.
If people already reviewed your code it will be hard for them to review only the improvements you made since then if you have rebased everything into one commit.
Another reasons not to rebase is that you lose authorship information, maybe someone created a merge request, another person pushed a commit on there to improve it and a third one merged it.
In this case rebasing all the commits into one prevent the other authors from being properly attributed and sharing part of the [git blame](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-blame).
People are encouraged to commit often and to frequently push to the remote repository so other people are aware what everyone is working on.
People are encouraged to commit often and to frequently push to the remote repository so other people are aware what everyone is working on.
This will lead to many commits per change which makes the history harder to understand.
This will lead to many commits per change which makes the history harder to understand.
...
@@ -221,13 +224,11 @@ You can reuse recorded resolutions (rerere) sometimes, but without rebasing you
...
@@ -221,13 +224,11 @@ You can reuse recorded resolutions (rerere) sometimes, but without rebasing you
There has to be a better way to avoid many merge commits.
There has to be a better way to avoid many merge commits.
The way to prevent creating many merge commits is to not frequently merge master into the feature branch.
The way to prevent creating many merge commits is to not frequently merge master into the feature branch.
We'll discuss the three reasons to merge in master: leveraging code, solving merge conflicts and long running branches.
We'll discuss the three reasons to merge in master: leveraging code, merge conflicts, and long running branches.
If you need to leverage some code that was introduced in master after you created the feature branch you can sometimes solve this by just cherry-picking a commit.
If you need to leverage some code that was introduced in master after you created the feature branch you can sometimes solve this by just cherry-picking a commit.
If your feature branch has a merge conflict, creating a merge commit is a normal way of solving this.
If your feature branch has a merge conflict, creating a merge commit is a normal way of solving this.
You should aim to prevent merge conflicts where they are likely to occur.
You can prevent some merge conflicts by using [gitattributes](http://git-scm.com/docs/gitattributes) for files that can be in a random order.
One example is the CHANGELOG file where each significant change in the codebase is documented under a version header.
For example in GitLab our changelog file is specified in .gitattributes as `CHANGELOG merge=union` so that there are fewer merge conflicts in it.
Instead of everyone adding their change at the bottom of the list for the current version it is better to randomly insert it in the current list for that version.
This it is likely that multiple feature branches that add to the CHANGELOG can be merged before a conflict occurs.
The last reason for creating merge commits is having long lived branches that you want to keep up to date with the latest state of the project.
The last reason for creating merge commits is having long lived branches that you want to keep up to date with the latest state of the project.
Martin Fowler, in [his article about feature branches](http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FeatureBranch.html) talks about this Continuous Integration (CI).
Martin Fowler, in [his article about feature branches](http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FeatureBranch.html) talks about this Continuous Integration (CI).
At GitLab we are guilty of confusing CI with branch testing. Quoting Martin Fowler: "I've heard people say they are doing CI because they are running builds, perhaps using a CI server, on every branch with every commit.
At GitLab we are guilty of confusing CI with branch testing. Quoting Martin Fowler: "I've heard people say they are doing CI because they are running builds, perhaps using a CI server, on every branch with every commit.
