A co-worker and I are both working on the master branch at the moment. I have some code in my working tree that I don't want to commit (debugging statements and the like). Now if he commits changes to some of those same files, I can't merge them:
$ git merge origin/master
Updating 1b8c5c6..eb44c23
error: Entry 'blah.java' not uptodate. Cannot merge.
Coming from a subversion background, I'm used to having my working tree automatically merged when I pull changes from the repository and if there are conflicts, I resolve them manually.
The quickest way I have found to do this in git is:
$ git stash
$ git merge origin/master
$ git stash pop
Essentially, removing my uncommitted changes, doing the merge and then re-applying the changes. How can I tell merge to automatically merge my working tree with the changes I'm trying to pull in?
MERGE_HEAD gets cleared, which causes only the last merge to be recorded. To let the merge revision keep all the parents, you have to set aside a copy of .git/MERGE_HEAD before running git stash. Then you have to combine all of the MERGE_HEADs together (one SHA per line) before the final commit.
git fetch origin master before the merge.
Forget everything you ever learned from subversion.
Always commit before introducing external changes.
Imagine you had a mostly-working tree -- maybe not perfect, but you're making some progress. Then you go to do a merge and the code you're bringing in just wreaked havoc (was buggy itself, too many conflicts to deal with, etc...). Wouldn't it be nice if you could just undo that?
If you commit, you can. If you don't, you're just going to suffer.
Remember: What you commit doesn't have to be what you push, but what you don't commit you can easily lose.
Just do the safe and easy thing and commit early and commit often.
As far as I can tell, the best you can do is what you already have with git stash. I too find it strange that merge wants to deal only with clean trees.
If local work is uncommitted And you've introduced completely new files that don’t exist in the remote branch: Or the files affected by your local work have ZERO overlap with the files affected by the changes you need to pull from the remote: You're in luck: git pull will "just work" Otherwise: If your local changes have NO overlap with changes you are pulling: git stash will work: git stash save git pull git stash pop If your local changes have SOME overlap with changes you are pulling: git stash will require manual conflict resolution: git stash save git pull git stash pop resolve merge conflicts git reset git stash drop
And you've introduced completely new files that don’t exist in the remote branch:
Or the files affected by your local work have ZERO overlap with the files affected by the changes you need to pull from the remote: You're in luck: git pull will "just work"
You're in luck: git pull will "just work"
Otherwise: If your local changes have NO overlap with changes you are pulling: git stash will work: git stash save git pull git stash pop If your local changes have SOME overlap with changes you are pulling: git stash will require manual conflict resolution: git stash save git pull git stash pop resolve merge conflicts git reset git stash drop
If your local changes have NO overlap with changes you are pulling: git stash will work: git stash save git pull git stash pop
git stash will work: git stash save git pull git stash pop
git stash save
git pull
git stash pop
If your local changes have SOME overlap with changes you are pulling: git stash will require manual conflict resolution: git stash save git pull git stash pop resolve merge conflicts git reset git stash drop
git stash will require manual conflict resolution: git stash save git pull git stash pop resolve merge conflicts git reset git stash drop
git stash save
git pull
git stash pop
resolve merge conflicts
git reset
git stash drop
If local work is committed And the files affected by your local work have ZERO overlap with the files affected by You're in luck: git pull will "just work" However: git pull --rebase will "work even better" because of a cleaner history there is no merge commit; your changes will be committed after upstream changes Otherwise: git pull will require manual conflict resolution: git pull resolve merge conflicts git add FILE for each conflicting FILE git commit git pull --rebase could still "work even better" because of a cleaner history however, resolving merge conflicts could be much harder
And the files affected by your local work have ZERO overlap with the files affected by You're in luck: git pull will "just work" However: git pull --rebase will "work even better" because of a cleaner history there is no merge commit; your changes will be committed after upstream changes
You're in luck: git pull will "just work"
However: git pull --rebase will "work even better" because of a cleaner history
there is no merge commit; your changes will be committed after upstream changes
Otherwise: git pull will require manual conflict resolution: git pull resolve merge conflicts git add FILE for each conflicting FILE git commit git pull --rebase could still "work even better" because of a cleaner history however, resolving merge conflicts could be much harder
git pull will require manual conflict resolution: git pull resolve merge conflicts git add FILE for each conflicting FILE git commit
git pull
resolve merge conflicts
git add FILE for each conflicting FILE
git commit
git pull --rebase could still "work even better" because of a cleaner history however, resolving merge conflicts could be much harder
however, resolving merge conflicts could be much harder
For a detailed explanation, please see: https://happygitwithr.com/pull-tricky.html
You cannot tell git merge to merge changes on files that have changes with respect to your local repository. This protects you from losing your changes on those times when a merge goes badly.
With the CVS and SVN approach to merging, if you did not manually copy your files before the update and it scrambled them on merge, you have to manually re-edit to get back to a good state.
If you either commit your changes or stash them before doing a merge, everything is reversible. If the merge does not go well you can try several ways of making it work out and go with the one that works best.
If you do commit experimental or debug changes, you might use git rebase to move them after the commits you get via git merge to make it easier to get rid of them or to avoid pushing them to a repository accidentally.
Note that using git rebase on a branch you have pushed to a shared repository will cause grief for everyone who is pulling from that repository.
I prefer to use git stash in these cases, but I only use it if the merge changes files that I have edited and not committed.
Follow WeChat
Success story sharing
Want to stay one step ahead of the latest teleworks?
Subscribe Now相似问题
- How to remove local (untracked) files from the current Git working tree
- How to recover a dropped stash in Git?
- How do I resolve merge conflicts in a Git repository?
- How do I undo 'git add' before commit?
- How do I delete a Git branch locally and remotely?
- Undo a Git merge that hasn't been pushed yet
- How do I safely merge a Git branch into master?
- How do I rename a local Git branch?
- Resolve Git merge conflicts in favor of their changes during a pull
stashversion is still reversible. I can re-stash, kill the merge commit and pop the stash again on whatever other commit I want. I don't mind forgetting what I've learned about subversion, but it blows when it does something much better than git, particularly when git is supposed to be the one that's so good at merging.