![]() ![]() # fetch and show what would be merged (use option "-p" to see patch) otherbranch", you can add the following to ~/.gitconfig. Many answers omit the fetch to be done first before "previewing" the merge this is an alias that combines these two steps into one (emulating something similar to mercurial's hg incoming / outgoing) Beware.Īdding to the existing answers, an alias could be created to show the diff and/or log prior to a merge. The conflict markers can be quite different depending on circumstance (deleted vs modified, etc), which makes it hard to grep, too. User makes a good point: this makes it unsuitable for scripting, because you can't easily catch that from the status code. If you would get merge conflicts, they will show up with the usual conflict markers in the output, e.g.: $ git merge-tree $(git merge-base a b ) a b ![]() (thanks to David Normington for the link) It also doesn't colorize the output or use your pager, so the full command would be: git merge-tree $(git merge-base master develop) master develop | colordiff | less -R To truly see what would change in the master branch if you merged develop into it, right now: git merge-tree $(git merge-base master develop) master developĪs it's a plumbing command, it does not guess what you mean, you have to be explicit. past merges which already bring some of the outstanding changes into your target branch, or cherry-picks doing the same. Most answers here either require a clean working directory and multiple interactive steps (bad for scripting), or don't work for all cases, e.g. ![]() If you're not ready to merge, use the safer way above. If the merge is successful, you cannot abort it (only reset). If git reports conflicts (and ONLY IF THERE ARE conflicts) you can then do: git merge -abort Strategy 2: When you definitely want to merge, but only if there aren't conflicts git checkout mybranch You don't need to bother "aborting" the merge, and you can go back to your work - simply checkout 'mybranch' again and you won't have any merged code or merge conflicts in your branch. That way you can simply throw away the temporary branch if you just want to see what the conflicts are. However, if you want to ensure you don't mess up your current branch, or you're just not ready to merge regardless of the existence of conflicts, simply create a new sub-branch off of it and merge that: Strategy 1: The safe way – merge off a temporary branch: git checkout mybranch This particular syntax feels clean and simple to me. So all in all, I would say your explicit use of stash is still a good approach, because you are using simple git commands and have full control over what is happening.I've found that the solution the works best for me is to just perform the merge and abort it if there are conflicts. Not sure how much simpler this makes things though -) ![]() In this case there is the -autostash flag. This again will be a problem when you have uncommited changes. In any case you might not be up-to-date with the upstream master. As a workaround you can add the -m / -merge flag to ask git to try and merge both changes. Switching branches will fail, (only) if you have modified files that differ between your feature branch and master. This is the same as git switch master followed by git switch -c new-branch and works the same if you replace git switch -c with git checkout -b again (e.g. One thing you can do as well when you are on a feature branch, but want to branch off of the master branch is git switch -c new-branch master. The other part of git checkout functionality should now be done with git restore. Git switch is mainly a cleaner version of branch-related commands in git checkout.Īll that git switch -c new-branch does, is create a new branch and switch to it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |