Is it possible to close a pull request without merging it into the upstream branch?
I am using gitflow and so I want the developer who started the feature branch to finish the feature branch rather than reviewer to merge the feature branch.
Looks like this facility is available in github.
You can abandon the Pull Request, it will close it without merging:
Ok, So if you want to merge but not delete the feature branch, there is an option. Just uncheck the delete check box.
Now using gitflow, you can now finish the branch. Then git flow will delete the branch locally as well as remotely. And before deleting locally, it will merge changes from the feature branch to the develop locally.
Related
On Bitbucket cloud I would like to merge the pull requests using fast forward.
Now it happens a lot of times that the pull request is not up to date, because other features are merged into the develop branch before the PR is merged. Normally this should then be solved with a rebase.
I don't see the option on Bitbucket cloud to do a rebase automatically to solve this issue, and manually doing the rebase all the time isn't a solution.
Anyone a idea to solve this?
Image option on Bitbucket cloud PR merge
I expected a option to do an option for automatic rebase if the branch is not up to date
Is there any way to replace merge with rebase at GitHub PRs? I looked through protected branches settings but didn't find such option.
GitHub now (Feb. 2022) supports this:
More ways to keep your pull request branch up-to-date
The Update branch button on the pull request page lets you update your pull request's branch with the latest changes from the base branch.
This is useful for verifying your changes are compatible with the current version of the base branch before you merge.
Update your pull request branch by rebasing:
When your pull request's branch is out of date with the base branch, you now have the option to update it by rebasing on the latest version of the base branch.
Rebasing applies the changes from your branch onto the latest version of the base branch, resulting in a branch with a linear history since no merge commit is created.
To update by rebasing, click the drop down menu next to the Update Branch button, click Update with rebase, and then click Rebase branch.
Previously, Update branch performed a traditional merge that always resulted in a merge commit in your pull request branch. This option is still available, but now you have the choice.
Note: Because rebasing rewrites the history of the branch, if you are working with the branch locally, you will need to fetch it and do a hard reset to ensure your local branch matches the branch on GitHub.com.
Learn more about keeping your pull request in sync with the base branch.
I doubt github supports this, as you should never rebase a public branch. From the official git docs:
Rebasing (or any other form of rewriting) a branch that others have based work on is a bad idea: anyone downstream of it is forced to manually fix their history. This section explains how to do the fix from the downstream’s point of view. The real fix, however, would be to avoid rebasing the upstream in the first place.
The easiest solution would be to simply use a merge. If you don't like that for any reason, you could create a new branch from main, apply the desired changes (e.g. by using git cherry-pick, or git diff in conjunction with patch), and then delete the old branch and create a new PR. If you really want to use rebase, you can do so locally and force-push the branch, but again, that's a really bad idea as it falsifies history and breaks the branch for everybody else.
I was working on a branch of my Bitbucket repo (lets call it "frontend-dev"), which has now been merged with the master branch. I would like to branch again to make further changes, without creating a new branch. How do I branch and get back onto "frontend-dev".
I am using Sourcetree to manage version control.
Normally merging to master does not close or delete the branch. If there are changes in master since the merge from "frontend-dev", you can merge back to "frontend-dev". Either way, you can then simply switch your working copy to "frontend-dev" and continue developing.
Another question discusses what to do when you have closed or deleted the branch: Restore Merged Branch in Bitbucket Repo
We have a Master branch and a Develop branch for our repo. We are supposed to check-in (commit, push) to our Develop branch and then merge that with our Master branch. Then a build is run for the Master branch. I pushed my changes directly to Master (then tagged it), putting Master multiple commits ahead of Develop and now want to bring Develop in sync with Master. What is the best practice to do this? I use GitExtensions and Visual Studio 2015 (am ok doing the operation in either). Do I 'push' Master into Develop or do a check out of remote branch Master and merge with my local?
I would find it most clear to just check out both branches locally, merge in the changes from your local master to your local develop. Then push your local develop to remote.
The workflow I use works something like this in the scenario you describe:
Switch to Develop branch
Fetch All
Choose last (newest) commit in Master, right click => Rebase current branch on => (commit ID)
If Rebase works successfully you're done. If not, you may need to resolve conflicts or cancel the Rebase and merge from scratch.
The reason for using Rebase is that it maintains a single line of commits thus helping keep everything clear.
For more info on the difference between rebase and merge see:
https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/merging-vs-rebasing
Caveat: I am fairly new to both git and GitHub.
So, in my current setup, my team uses git flow Hotfixes (usually started and finished by a graphical tool such as GitKraken or IntelliJ) to make changes that have to be merged into two branches and pushed upstream in both. So for example the flow would be:
Pull latest from master
Start hotfix
Commit changes
Merge hotfix branch into both master and develop and push both upstream
We're now looking at moving our code into GitHub and would like to start using Pull Requests, for a couple of reasons:
CI hooks to run tests and stuff
a place to put code-specific comments not directly related to the underlying "issue"
avoiding the need for everyone to constantly be pulling the latest master/develop to their local machine so that they can merge changes
But in the case of Hotfixes, I'm not sure what to do because I'm merging into two branches but it really is one "action" so manually creating two pull requests seems weird, particularly since step 4) in our current flow is a single click.
Is there a smart way of handling this? My ideal case would be that pushing the Merge button on the Pull Request would just merge into both, but that doesn't seem to be an available option.
As you mentioned, a Pull Request has only one target branch, so you won't be able to push the hotfix to both master and develop by merging one Pull Request.
I'm also surprised you mention your step #4 - merging the hotfix branch to both master and develop and push upstream - is one action. While there's a high chance the merge from hotfix to master won't run into merge conflicts, I can't say the same for the merge from hotfix to develop since it could have been worked on since the last deployment to production.
My recommendation would then be the following:
Create one PR from hotfix to master and have someone review it to validate the fix
Once it's merged into master, create another PR from hotfix to develop and see if you run into merge conflicts
If that's the case, resolve the merge conflicts so the PR ends up in a state to be merged, and have someone review the PR
If there's no merge conflicts, then have someone review the PR
An alternative solution, if you really want to go down the automated path, would be to leverage both GitHub webhooks and API.
The webhook would allow you to be notified when a PR is merged. You could inspect the payload to make sure that the base branch starts with hotfix/ and the target branch is master. You could then react to that event by using the API to create a new PR from the same hotfix branch to develop.
It will involve some development, and the effort might not be worth since creating a PR via the UI is still quite easy and quick.