why do people rebase so often? shouldn't it be excluded from the usual workflows as you are losing commit history as well?
And in the feature branches/merge requests, I don’t merge, only rebase. Rebasing should be the default workflow. Merging adds so many problems for no good reason.
There are use cases for merging, but not as the normal workflow.
With rebasing, there could be a million times the branch was rebased and you would have no idea when and where something got broken by hasty conflict resolution.
When conflicts happen, rebasing is equivalent to merging, just at the commit level instead of at branch level, so in the worst case, developers are met with conflict after conflict, which ends up being a confusing mental burden on less experienced devs and certainly a ”trust the process” kind of workflow for experienced ones as well.
If you want to keep track of what commits belongs to a certain pr, you can still have an empty merge commit at the end of the rebase. Gitlab will add that for you automatically.
The ”hasty conflict resolution ” makes a broken merge waaaay harder to fix than a broken rebase.
And rebasing makes you take care of each conflict one commit at a time, which makes it order by magnitudes easier to get them right, compared to trying to resolve them all in a single merge commit.
Having a ”fix broken merge” commit makes it explicit that there was an issue that was fixed.
Rebase sometimes seems like an attempt at saving face.
Even if you do it properly, the workflow is erasing history of that conflict existing and needing to be resolved. It leaves no trace of what has been worked on, when, and by whom.
Do some work on a file, commit 1 to branch A.
Meanwhile, in another branch B created off main, someone else commits changes to the same part of the same file.
That other branch B gets merged to main.
Now, rebase branch A onto main.
The rebase stops at the commit 1 due to a conflict between main and branch A.
Fix the conflict and commit. This erases commit 1 and creates new commit 1' where the conflict has never existed. History has been rewritten.
Rebase successfully completes, branch A now contains different commits than previously, so it will need to be force-pushed to remote if it already exists there. The protocol has resistance against changing history.
Merge branch A to main.
No commit in main now contains any information that there was a conflict that was fixed.
Had a pull request workflow been used, the ”merge main to A” merge commit message would detail which files were conflicting. No such commit is made when using a rebase workflow, chasing those clean fast-forward merges.
> whether it’s better to rebase a work branch onto the main branch, or to pull the changes from the main branch to the work branch.
The problem with this is that the latter has an infinitely higher chance of resulting in criss-cross merges than the former (which is 0).
I know that worst case isn't all that common or everyone would be scared of rebases, but I've seen it enough that I have a healthy disrespect of rebase heavy workflows and try to avoid them when given the option/in charge of choosing the tools/workflows/processes.
In git, the merge (and merge commit) is the primitive and rebase a higher level operation on top of them with a complex but not generally well understood cache with only a few CLI commands and just about no UI support anywhere.
Like I said, because the rerere cache is so out-of-sight/out-of-mind that's why problems with it become weird and hard to debug. The situations I've seen that have been truly rebase-heavy workflows with multiple "git flow" long-running branches and even sometimes cherry picking between them. (Generally the same sorts of things that create "criss-cross merge scenarios".) Rebased commits start to bring in regressions from other branches. Rebased commits start to break builds randomly. If what is getting rebased is a long-running branch you probably don't have eyes on every commit, so finding where these hidden merge regressions happen becomes full branch bisects, you can't just focus on merge commits because you don't have them anymore, every commit is a candidate for a bad merge in a rebased branch.
Personally, I'd rather have real merge commits where you can trace both parents and the code not from either parent (conflict fixes), and you don't have to worry about ghosts of bad merges showing up in any random commit. Even the worst "criss-cross merge" commits are obvious in a commit log and I've seen have had enough data to surgically fix, often nearly as soon as they happen. rerere cache problems are things that can go unnoticed for weeks to everyone's confusion and potentially a lot of hidden harm. You can't easily see both parents of the merges involved. You might even have multiple repos with competing rerere caches alternating damage.
But also yes rerere cache problems are so generally infrequent that it might also take weeks of research, when it does happen, just to figure out what the rerere cache is for, that it might be the cause of some of your "merge ghosts" haunting your codebase, and how to clean it.
Obviously by the point where you are rebasing git flow-style long runnning branches and using frequent cherry picks you're in a rebase heavy workflow that is painful for other reasons and maybe that's an even heavier step beyond "rebase heavy" to some, but because the rerere cache is involved to some degree in every rebase once you stop trusting the rerere cache it can be hard to trust any rebase heavy workflow again. Like I said, personally I like the integration history/logs/investigatable diffs that real merge commits provide and prefer tools like `--first-parent` when I need "linear history" views/bisects.
The overall project history though, the clarity of changes made, and that bisecting reliably works are important to me.
Or another way; the important unit is whatever your unit of code review is. If you're not reviewing and checking individual commits, they're just noise in the history; the commit messages are not clear and I cannot reliably bisect on them (since nobody is checking that things build).
feature/{first initial} {last initial} DONOTMERGE {yyyy-MM-dd-hh-mm-ss}
Yes, the branch name literally says do not merge.
I commit anything and everything. Build fails? I still commit. If there is a stopping point and I feel like I might want to come back to this point, I commit.
I am violently against any pre commit hook that runs on all branches. What I do on my machine on my personal branch is none of your business.
I create new branches early and often. I take upstream changes as they land on the trunk.
Anyway, this long winded tale was to explain why I rebase. My commits aren't worth anything more than stopping points.
At the end, I create a nice branch name and there is usually only one commit before code review.
Rebasing is kind of a short hand for cherry-picking, fixing up, rewording, squashing, dropping, etc. because these things don't make sense in isolation.
But even if i wasn't using gerrit, sometimes its the easiest way to fix branches that are broken or restructure your work in a more clear way
Too often, merges is only understood as bring the changes from there to here, it may be useful especially if you have release candidates branches and hotfixes. And you want to keep a trave of that process. But I much prefer rebasing and/or squashing PR onto the main branch.
... for code, honestly no idea
(Hint: --no-merges, --merges)