Re: Working on merged branches whilst seeing current master

[Tim Mazid <timmazid@hotmail.com>]

rhlee wrote:
> 
> 
> Tim Mazid wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, there's no reason you couldn't just 'git reset HEAD^' once you
>> realise that the branch isn't ready. If you want to see the changes from
>> master, you could just merge that into your branch. If you just want to
>> see the content in master, you could use gitk or gitg, which allows you
>> to view files at any commit.
>> 
>> Personally, I merge master into my branches, test and check, and fix,
>> then merge the branch into master. This sometimes results in a
>> fast-forward, if you haven't made changes to master. If you don't like
>> that, you can always use the --no-ff option, though.
>> 
> 
> I don't think 'git reset HEAD^' would work in my case as that only goes
> back one commit. I may have made many other changes on the master branch
> that I want to keep.
> 
> By merging from master into your branch, like you said, you get a nice
> graph view that shows what you've brought into your branch from master
> since you last left off. But doesn't this goes against the idea that
> branches should be independent, by bringing in changes from master?
> 

Yup, you only need to 'git reset HEAD^' on the master branch to undo the
merge. Isn't that what you wanted?

And yeah, I suppose it kind of does. But once again, you can 'git reset
HEAD^'. And since you're merging master INTO the branches, you are keeping
the branches independent, anyway.
-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Working-on-merged-branches-whilst-seeing-current-master-tp3987667p4070977.html
Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com.