I know of some people who use git pull --rebase
by default and others who insist never to use it. I believe I understand the difference between merging and rebasing, but I'm trying to put this in the context of git pull
. Is it just about not wanting to see lots of merge commit messages, or are there other issues?
相关问题
- Why does recursive submodule update from github fa
- Extended message for commit via Visual Studio Code
- Emacs shell: save commit message
- Can I organize Git submodules in a flat hierarchy?
- Upload file > 25 MB on Github
相关文章
- 请教Git如何克隆本地库?
- GitHub:Enterprise post-receive hook
- Git Clone Fails: Server Certificate Verification F
- SSIS solution on GIT?
- Is there a version control system abstraction for
- ssh: Could not resolve hostname git: Name or servi
- Cannot commit changes with gitextensions
- git: retry if http request failed
I don't think there's ever a reason not to use
pull --rebase
-- I added code to Git specifically to allow mygit pull
command to always rebase against upstream commits.When looking through history, it is just never interesting to know when the guy/gal working on the feature stopped to synchronise up. It might be useful for the guy/gal while he/she is doing it, but that's what
reflog
is for. It's just adding noise for everyone else.I think it boils down to a personal preference.
Do you want to hide your silly mistakes before pushing your changes? If so,
git pull --rebase
is perfect. It allows you to later squash your commits to a few (or one) commits. If you have merges in your (unpushed) history, it is not so easy to do agit rebase
later one.I personally don't mind publishing all my silly mistakes, so I tend to merge instead of rebase.