From: Hilco Wijbenga Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:57:36 GMT Subject: Re: Linear history *and* share a branch? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vfwch51nn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On 5 April 2012 14:06, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Hilco Wijbenga writes: >> Hi all, >> >> We have been using Git for about a year now in a very small team. So >> far, everyone has worked on their own local branches and been doing >> "git rebase master" to make sure their local branches stay in synch. >> This way we have a nice linear history in master. >> >> Recently, it has become useful to share one of these local branches >> between two devs. Of course, when one of the devs does his usual "git >> rebase master", he screws up the other dev's environment. Our solution >> has been to keep rebasing the shared branch but to actually work on a >> local branch that is rebased on the shared branch. By judiciously >> using "git reset" and "git pull" on the shared branch the two devs can >> keep the shared branch in synch and then use "git rebase >> shared-branch" on their local branch to keep it in synch to. While >> this works, there is probably a better/simpler solution. >> >> Should we simply do "git merge master" instead of "git rebase master"? > > That certainly is a sensible thing to do. > > But if your people are used to rebasing their own 'master' on top of > shared 'master', I would imagine that it wouldn't be hard at all for these > two people that work on a topic branch to do the same for their 'topic' > branch, no?  Just like rebasing their 'master' on shared 'master', they > would rebase their own 'topic' on shared 'topic'. I'm not sure I'm following you here. I agree with what you say but I'm not clear on exactly how it applies to what I asked. :-/ Rebasing the 'local-topic' on 'shared-topic' branch is certainly possible but that would not help with linear history with regards to 'master', right? And rebasing 'shared-topic' on 'master' (to get its updates) would "break" one of the dev's environments. Unless you mean they should both do that separately? I suppose that's possible. I'm not clear on the consequences. It seems that (as Aevar said) we should simply ignore linear history while 'shared-topic' exists and only rebase on master when integrating it back into master. But I get the impression that you might have a slightly different approach in mind?