I'm fairly new to using EGit and Github, and want to resolve something. A few days ago I was trying to revert to a previous commit of my Java Spring Boot App because I was unhappy with my project edits I'd made that day. At this time I had one "master" branch with a bunch of different commits. To revert to a previous commit, I was either incorrectly suggested or I incorrectly tried to "checkout" this commit, and mistakenly created a new branch while doing so. So now I have two branches, where the latest one has all the updated code. Is there any way to merge the 2 branches, keeping all the code and everything the same? I just want there to be 1 master branch so that I and my co-developers can see all the commits in chronological order with ease, and not be confused by the fact that there's 2 branches. Thanks and sorry for my inexperience with this!
Two scenarios here
1. You want master branch but you dont want recent commit. you want to replace it with previous
Solution
A. perform pull operation on your project now you have all the latest file
B. select file which you want to replace with previous commit.right click on file and select replace with -->commit-->choose commit you want to replace from list
C.perform commit and push
D. repeat same procedure for each file.
2.You want only master branch with latest Commit and want to delete another branch
Solution.
A. perform pull operation on your project now you have all the latest file
B.Go to repository window-->branches-->local branch-->select branch you want to delete and push the changes
Related
I just accidentally merged to a branch that I had 40+ local changes on - so now my changes and the merge are together, which I definitely do not want, with a lot of the files having edit & merge changes. I want to completely revert out the merge, is there a way to do this? If not, I'm in trouble.
I haven't checked anything in, I just only want to keep my local changes that I made.
If you merge to a branch via pull request in Azure Devops, then you can revert the completed pull request directly.
In Target branch, select the branch where you want to undo the pull request changes.
In Topic branch name, select a new branch where the reverted changes are created, then select Revert.
Select Create pull request to merge the newly created branch in a second pull request to complete the revert. For details ,please refer to this document.
If I ignore something, you could attach detailed steps or flow for this issue , this would be much easier for me to understand and reply.
I agree with Leo BL. You can try to copy your current project folder into temporary folder. Then checkout the merge source branch and compare it with temporary folder by some diff/merge tool. However, that maybe difficult to cut your changes if they were in the same files with the merge operation.
Just a quick hint: Basically, this is a git question. So maybe you should consider giving it the git tag aswell, so you can reach a greater audience.
Regarding your question: What means local change? Is the stuff not committed at all? What does git status show?
Assuming the changes are not committed, you could use git stash. I recommend this SO question:
Cancel git merge but keep local changes
I would try it this way:
1. Backup the directory (so you have a backup if something goes wrong)
2. Stash your changes
3. Revert the merge
4. Load the stashed changes
—> You should be fine
sorry but you are in trouble. After the merge the files are replaced
Keeps track of files in eclipse, who made changes on which branch
Hello Guys, I am using BitBucket for project management, and i Create different branches as per features. Multiple teams works on their own branches and some time multiple teams make changes in same file.
So at the time of release I have to merge all the created branches in one major branch, but at time of merge i get a lot of merge conflicts,
So basically what i want, when developer going to make changes in any file, dev will get to know all submitted changes in another branches for this same file, (where dev going to make changes), So he or she will know the possible scenarios.
An alternative is to ask for a developer to rebase his/her own branch on top of the main branch first.
Then you can merge that branch easily enough.
That way:
if there are any conflicts, they are detected and resolve by the developer (who knows best how to resolve it)
each merge is a trivial one.
This is probably a noob question, as I only started using Eclipse Git a few days ago.
I was wondering if it was, in any way, possible to have multiple people working on different files in a repository but, when ready to commit, only have one commit for all, instead of one commit per person...?
I was also wondering if there was an option to automatically pull modified files, or a way to update the modified files in every person working in the repository, without making a commit per person first?
I'm asking this because I use Jenkins, and every time a commit is made in GitHub, it immediately starts a build, and it would be very annoying to create a commit per person just because of probably some lines of codes.
Best regards
EGit doesn't have a feature for that, but you can work around it by "squashing" the commits in GitHub. Here's how it works:
Step 1) Create a branch
Step 2) Make everyone work on that branch until it's time to commit (in your words)
Step 3) Create a pull request for merging the branch with master or whatever branch that is marked as default
Step 4) Click "Merge pull request" and then do this:
If you can't find the option to squash-merge, go to the repository settings and make sure the checkbox highlighted in this image is full:
Step 5) Confirm squash and merge
I'm trying to identify the proper way of working with multiple branches on Gerrit that would match our workflow.
The way we work with branches right now is: we have master & feature branch. Master is the branch we want to polish and make it ready for release, while feature is obviously a field of intensive work. Now, in our particular case whenever somebody works on a bug fix, they:
create a change targeted for master branch
cherry pick it to the feature branch targeted change
once gerrit code review completes, submit both changes.
now the way i understand cherry-pick, it selects individual commit and merges it to the current change. if that is the case, i would expect to have no merge conflicts in the end, and indeed this workflow works perfectly with just GIT. Gerrit, however, most likely due to its nature (branches are not merged remotely the way these are locally and get a different sha tag) lists a tremendous number of conflicting files in the end.
Now, I resolved all these issues by applying merge strategy (ours on feature, theirs on master), but it does not feel right: if anything was not propagated, it just got discarded.
My question is: is there a safe workflow, similar to the above one, that would in the end produce a clean merge with gerrit?
I would say that it's better, in this case, to merge than to cherry pick.
A cherry pick adds the same changes but not the same commit. So while the source is the same on a cherry pick and merge the git tree is different. When the tree is different and you later do a merge git will think that the commit you previously cherry picked is missing and try to merge that change as well, even if the actual code is already there. That's probably why you get a lot of conflicts.
I would propose another way of working.
When you do normal work you develop on feature and push to Gerrit as normal.
When you do a patch (ie bug fix) on the stable production environment you do that directly on master (or local branches if you like but not on feature)
When the patch as been approved in Gerrit it get's merged into the real master and you can make a pull request to get that change to your local copy. Your version of master is now the same as Gerrits master
Now you would merge all new changes on master into feature. Make sure you do a rebase so that the patch ends up before anything you've already done on feature
Once it's time to deploy all new features you can merge feature into master, push to Gerrit (if you have permissions you can by pass gerrit by pushing directly to master instead of refs/for/master as these changes are already reviewed)
Once all changes are on Gerrits master you do a pull on your master and a merge into feature with rebase making feature a clean branch to work on. It's of course totally valid to have a new feature each release. Both work fine.
I'm a little confused, as this flow should work just fine. If other users submit changes before your bug fix is reviewed/verified/submitted, that could result in merge conflicts, but that should be rare.
If you:
Fix a bug on master
Push to review (creating change A in gerrit)
cherry-pick change A on top of the feature branch (resolving any conflicts from master to feature)
Push the cherry-picked change to review (creating change B)
Review/verify/submit changes A & B
Everything will work fine. The only way for merge conflicts to occur is if other users upload and submit changes between steps 1 and 5. Are you seeing different behavior? Can you provide more details?
I am looking forward to merge my code which I developed in a branch of SVN to the trunk. I am using Eclipse and I have been using Team->Commit to commit my updates to the SVN. But I haven't done a merge before. Please help me with this.
First of all make sure you are up to date. Update your working copy of the target branch, ie. where you are merging into. In this example we're working on the trunk of "core" and we want to grab the changes that have happened in the maintenance branch and merge them.
Resolve any conflicts. There should be no conflicts at this stage between the working copy and the repository.
Select the SVN merge option on the working copy. In Eclipse this is going to be found under the "Team" menu and called "Merge Branch".
SVN: Merging in Eclipse
Change the From URL to the specific branch you want to be merged into your working copy. In this example we're looking for the p400 maintenance branch (./core/branches/p400).
Change the From Revision to the last revision that was merged into the target branch. Essentially you don't want to keep merging the whole branch history, you just want to include those changes since the last time you merged. There is no easy way to determine the last merge point at this time in Subversion. You have to review your message log and look for the last commit that talks about merging. If you are disciplined about the commit messages you use for merging this should be easy (see below). Make a note of what that revision is -- you'll need this later when you commit your changes.
SVN: Merge with Eclipse
Change the To Revision to the latest (i.e. head). Make a note of what that revision is -- you'll need this later when you commit your changes.
Click Merge and wait. Depending on how big the differences are this may be quick or Eclipse my just fall over. If you have such an enormous change that you can't get it done in Eclipse you may need to make the range of revisions you are merging smaller. Or you may even have to skip certain revisions and do them manually if they are massive. We've had this problem from time to time when updating large third-party libraries. The vast majority of the time you will be fine.
Review changes and resolve conflicts. Once the merge is complete, look through the changes made to your working copy and make sure you address any conflicts you find.
Once all the changes have been resolved in the target working copy, check them in with a single commit. The reason you're not doing lots of commits is that these are changes that should have been documented in the branch from which you merged. The commit message needs to be in a specific format that details the merge and is easy to find in the future. We use the following format, but you can use anything that works for you -- as long as you stick to it.
Merging [source] to [target]; [repository]. Merge rev [start]:[end]
Enjoy!
In eclipse we have an option to merge. Right click the project , you will see "Team" option and on clicking it you will see merge option. There are three different options you can see in the merge.
To successfully merge the changes from the branch to the trunk, we need to switch the local workspace to the trunk (but make sure all the changes are committed to the branch before that). Once we do that we can use merge option and select "2 URLs" option. I put url for trunk as url 1 and the branch I wanted to merge as url 2. I could see all the incoming changes I selected "OK". All the changes are in my local now (at this point my workspace is linked to the trunk). Then I committed my changes to the trunk and hence merge from branch to the trunk was successful.
I would like to add for Point 8 .Review changes and resolve conflicts. ---
When working on conflicts manually- when you do copy from right to left on chunks of code - Be careful
Sometimes chunk of code gets added, sometimes it properly replaces the chunk.
Make sure there is no duplicate chunk of code.
Also, this is helpful-- What is the proper way to do a Subversion merge in Eclipse?