Using TortoiseGit (I'm trying to avoid command line usage) how does one delete all commits that accended from a certain commit, and "get back in the past" (example usage: continued doing something, figured I didn't like where it was going, and decided to go "back" disregarding all in between).
In short I wish to go 5 commits "back", and delete them afterwards.
Go to TortoiseGit -> Show log. Select the most recent commit you want to keep, everything above will be erased. Then right click on it and select "Reset "master" to this" and choose Hard. Be careful though because once you do this all the commits after it will be forever lost unless they are stored off in another branch somewhere.
I've never used Tortoise anything (unless you count the electronica group), but I'll give you this info in case you don't find a way to do it with the GUI or you end up deciding to go CLI after all.
As #Tuxified mentions, you can accomplish this with git reset --hard <COMMIT>. You need to specify a commit, which can be done in any of an intimidating panoply of possible ways; the most common have forms like HEAD~4, which specifies a commit 4 commits before the head of the current branch, and deadbeef42, which specifies a commit whose SHA1 starts with 0xdeadbeef42. If you're running linux or OSX, you can get the full details on commit specifiers via man git-rev-parse, under "SPECIFYING REVISIONS".
You can also rename the current branch (git branch -m new_branch_name) and then create a new branch with its head at the place you want to revert to. The advantage is that if you end up wanting to use all or some of the stuff you did there, you can still readily access it; and if you typo the commit, you're saved from a big holycrap moment. Plus git branches are super lightweight so the only real downside is that there will be another branch listed. To make the new master branch you would use git branch master <COMMIT>, and then you check it out. So the net effect here is the same as the first option, except that you still have your old changes saved in the branch new_branch_name. You can even merge those changes back in later, after new commits to master, if you feel like it.
Note that either of these techniques are considered "rewriting history" and will cause issues if you're sharing your repo with others. If you're being smart and pushing to a backup repo in cloud city or another pc, you will have to fix things on that end before you can push to it again.
This is probably way more info than you need right now, but if you end up using git a lot you'll probably want to learn this stuff at some point. Sorry I don't know how to use Tortoise...
Related
When I choose "update from master", it creates a merge commit. I'd rather just have it re-base. Is this possible?
It does not appear that feature is currently included in GitHub desktop. What I normally do is click on the repository name in the drop-down menu in the top left and then click on "open in terminal". Then just follow the instructions here.
Update:
If you add this to your .gitconfig, GitHub desktop should rebase according to here.
[pull]
rebase = true
Second Update:
GitHub desktop 2.0 now supports rebasing built in! It is under the branch section of the top menu or you can use the shortcut ⇧⌘E
As #Taraz commented on the question, GitHub Desktop now has the option built in.
Branch > Rebase current branch
It's below the Update from master option
Using rebase instead of merging branches results in an easier to follow but less exact history of commits. Your team should agree under what circumstances you should rebase a branch. You should still always merge branches into the main branch through a pull request.
A suggested approach is to allow rebasing local changes that you have made but haven't shared with others, but to merge once you are sharing changes with others. This avoids trouble with rewriting history while still letting you easily catch up with changes as you develop your code locally.
Ref & Source:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/vsts/git/tutorial/rebase?tabs=visual-studio#when-to-rebase-vs-merge
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/vsts/git/tutorial/pulling?tabs=visual-studio#update-your-branch-with-the-latest-changes-from-master
No. There was a feature request on their GitHub issue tracker for exactly this option a year ago, for which the response was
This idea is interesting for the future, but this is beyond the scope of our current roadmap.
Since then, another feature request, which is still open, has also been posted.
I am learning git and SVN in Xcode 5.
My question:
How should I revert back my previous commit when I commit my code?
Is there a way on a branch to revert back to previous commits?
For example, I commit a state, call it GOODSPOT, then I commit, a few times as my code progresses. Can I easily revert back to GOODSPOT, in a single click ? Or do i have to go through line by line. Similar to going back to an old snap shot ?
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/cocoa/conceptual/ProgrammingWithObjectiveC/Conventions/Conventions.html
Here is what you can do
$ git push origin (branch)
You can go back to any commit you want to. Use the command-line interface (also known as Terminal).
As far as I'm concerned every time i try Source Control. It depends on whether you are working with people. I would just go back to the terminal and recommend it.
For versioning in Xcode, I do this:
- in my Developer directory I set up a project folder
- then Duplicate the Outer initial folder Xcode sets up and append its name with a number and two word description of where it's at
- this also duplicates development art, research notes etc
- the inner folder is all XCode cares about, so that one gets untouched
- when the finished app ships, I illustrate its development for proving copyright originality
We work with a git respository that has over 20,000 files.
My group maintains local versions of about 100 or so of configuration and source files from this repository. THe original acts as a sort of base that several groups modify and tweak to their own needs (some core things are not allowed to be changed, but front end and some custom DB stuff are different between groups)
So we want to update to the latest version generally, but not have the git update overwrite the files that we keep local modifications for.
The machines we use are windows based. Currently the repository gets cloned to a windows server that then gets checked out/cloned to the development machines (which are also windows). The developers make changes as necessary and recommit to our local repo. The local repo updates against the master daily. We never commit back to the master.
So we want all the files that haven't been changed by our group to update, but any that have been changed (ever) won't get updated.
Is there a way to allow this to happen automatically, so the windows server just automatically updates daily, ignoring those files we keep modifications for. And if we want to add a new file to this "don't update" list its just a right-click (or even a flat file list away). I looked at git-ignore but it seems to be for committing, not for updating.
Even better would be a way to automatically download the vanilla files but have them renamed automatically. For example settings.conf is a file we want to keep changes on generally, but if they modify the way entries in that file are handled or add extra options it would be nice it it downloaded it as settings.conf.vanilla or something so we just run a diff on .vanilla files against ours and see what we want to keep. Though this feature is not absolutely necessary and seems unlikely.
If this cannot be accomplished on a windows machine (the software for windows doesn't support such features), please list some Linux options as well if available. We do have an option to use a Linux server for hosting the local git repo if needed.
Thanks.
It sounds like you're working with a third party code base that's under active development and you have your own customisations which you need to apply.
I think the answer you're looking for is rebase. You shouldn't need to write any external logic to achieve this, except for a job which regularly pulls in the third party changes and rebases your modifications on top of them.
This should also be more correct than simply ignoring the files you've modified, as you won't then accidentally ignore changes that the third party has made to those files (you may sometimes get a conflict, which could be frustrating, but better than silently missing an important change).
Assuming that your local repo is indeed simply a fork, maintain your changes on your own branch, and every time you update the remote repository, simply rebase your local branch on top of those changes:
git pull origin master
git checkout custom_branch
git rebase master
Edit
After you've done this, you'll end up with all the changes you made on your custom_branch sitting on top of master. You can then continue to make your customisations on your own branch, and development of the third party code can continue independently.
The next time you want to pull in the extra changes, you'll repeat the process:
Make sure you're on the master branch before pulling in changes to the third party code:
git checkout master
Pull in the changes:
git pull origin master
Change to your customised branch:
git checkout custom_branch
Move your changes on top of the third party changes:
git rebase master
This will then put all your own changes on top of master again. master itself won't be changed.
Remember that the structure of your repo just comes from a whole set of "hashes" which form a tree. Your branches are just like "post it" notes which are attached to a particular hash, and can be moved to another hash as your branch grows.
The rebase is like chopping off a branch and re-attaching it somewhere else. In this case, you're saying something like "chop off our changes and re-attach them on top of the main trunk".
If you can install a visual tool like GitX, it will really help to see how the branch tags move around when you rebase. The command line is ideal for working with but I find something like GitX is invaluable for getting a handle on the structure of your repo.
I'm doing a single developer Visual Studio solution and reached a point where I'd like to incorporate Versioning Control. Several posts address this issue, but one problem I'm facing is a large merge. I have a production copy of the solution and a beta copy. They are NOT dramatically different, but they will require a number of interactions I suspect. I'm using TortoiseSVN and have imported the production version.
Yes, I know I should have used Version Control from the start, but that is hind sight. Would it be best practice to simply use the beta as a reference and work the interations from scratch. Or should I branch off and import the beta separately, then attempt to merge the change. Or is there another alternative I'm missing.
Thanks,
dgp
well, I have experienced SVN in the past ... and I must say, it's lovely cause it's really easy to understand the concept, but it's awful terrible when things pass from the plain commit.
I'm currently using GIT (to host small code on GitHub) and Mercurial (Hg) (I use Kiln in the company - was recommended by myself so they can start using - and in BitBucket for personal use)
I have used SVN for more than a hole year and every time I need something from "the past" or to merge something, it was a nightmare, but the server/client concept was really a break deal and extremely easy to get it... but I found my self, over and over to do merging by hand :(
When GIT started to be hot, I was afraid to move as, dang! SVN was a pain, why should be different in a DVCS?
This videos rocked my world, [ part 1 part 2 ], only then I understood DVCS vs VCS and it was with this that I moved COMPLETELY to DVCS and never go back... proudly!
For your problem, I would install git (or hg), and then create a repository on the folder you have your current source with:
git init will tell your folder, "Hey, I'm a GIT Repo"
git add . let's add all files and folders to be tracked by git
git commit -m "initial commit" let's save all the hard work :)
So, now you have a tracked code, you can simple create a branch and overwrite all your files. YES, worry not, you don't need to have copies of your code in a folder called branch ;) no more copies! all is in the GIT database
then, after creating the branch, changed the files, added all files to be tracked on that branch and committed, safely do a merge :)
ohh, and you don't need a server connection to do all this, all you need is a computer with GIT installed... no more connection dependencies! DVCS is cool or what?! :D
I'm using Git Gui and Gitk on Windows. How do I undo a hard reset from within the past two hours?
(Is it possible to do this from these applications, without using the command line?)
I saw this SO post, which says that undos are possible before git's garbage collection occurs. I might have quit and reopened one or both of these applications.
If you had changes in your working tree that were not committed when you did git reset --hard, those changes are gone for ever. You have to use your memory (in your head) to recreate them.
Changes that were committed after the commit to which you switched are not lost. They likely have no reference pointing to them, making them more difficult to locate. The tool to list all low-level changes to the repo is git reflog.
After you locate the commit which you want to revert to observe the hash number in the first row and use git reset --hard #hashnumber or git checkout #hashnumber to get the changes.
I found this useful line on http://quirkygba.blogspot.com/2008/11/recovering-history-with-git-reflog.html:
gitk --all $(git reflog | cut -c1-7)
This will display all the hidden changes in gitk, where you can comfortably view, point, click and create new branches.
As you mentioned the unreferenced commits are normally being kept in the repository for 30 days.
EDIT: I have to add stuff here so that my edit is at least 6 characters. I know, sometimes code fixes are less than 6 characters, but there might, after all, be something else to improve in this post.
See the answers by Brian Riehman and Pat Notz in the link in the question.
One solution is to use the command line.
In Windows, open DOS in the directory containing your .git directory.
Type something like the following to see what commit you want to go to:
"c:\Program Files\Git\bin\git.exe" reflog
To go to a certain commit, type something like the following, where the last expression is the SHA1 code of that commit:
"c:\Program Files\Git\bin\git.exe" reset --hard 5eb4080
I don't think you can undo a hard reset to get uncommitted changes back - you can undo a rebase because the blobs are still available, but if you never committed your newest changes to Git ever, anything it overwrote is most likely history. I'd love to find out that I'm wrong though!