Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
ltlian101011dI do it that way sometimes as well.
I'm on my feature branch, master gets updated, git stash save, git merge master, git stash apply, resolve conflicts, finish my work, commit, make pull request with no conflicts.
halfflat70711dIt's like the poor man's rebase.
Similarly, rather than try to rebase a long historied feature branch against master, where fixes have been incorporated into each branch, I've on occasion just made a patch against the fork point and then apply the patch holus bolus.
Sacrificing commit history for sanity.
You mean he does one mega commit at the end of the work?
s4nju11311dThe day you decide to make that big commit and machine crashes, stashes are gone too...
Probably its better to keep rebasing and keep amending the commit and force pushing **as long as nobody else is using that feature branch and not going to be merged anywhere else until totally done**
Fast-Nop1407211dFeature takes a long time, changes are in stash only?
If that's on the local machine, it means a lot of work with no backup because local machines aren't backed up in most companies.
Your Job Suck?
Take a quick quiz from Triplebyte to skip the job search hassles and jump to final interviews at hot tech firms
Get a Better Job