1.5 KiB
| title | date | permalink | tags | cta | snippet | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Making Git work the way you want | 2024-03-31 | daily/2024/03/31/making-git-work-the-way-you-want |
|
~ | Merge or rebase - which do you use? |
Another question that followed my recent Git emails was, " I assume you use rebase over merge?"
The short answer is "yes". I like to keep the history of my repositories clean and simple to read by keeping the logs linear and not full of merge commits.
The longer answer is that I do merges, but only fast-forward merges, at least by default.
If, when merging, Git can fast-forward my branch to the latest commit without creating a merge commit, it will do so.
If not, I can then rebase my changes to make them linear and fast-forwardable. Alternatively, if the commits have already been pushed and cannot be overwritten, I can explicitly allow a non-fast-forward merge in that situation.
I have Git configured to work this way as that's how I want it to work, and that configurability is something I like about Git.
If you want to see how I have Git configured, my settings are in my dotfiles repository (note this file is written in the Nix language as I use Nix to manage my configuration).
If you're working in a team, I'd suggest having a common configuration for everyone and defined rules for how you're going to use Git (branch names, merge or rebase, etc) to avoid inconsistencies.