Although rebase is not a complicated concept itself, many people have trouble understanding it.
I believe this is mostly because people new to git postpone or never get to learning the rebase command because they are overwhelmed by all the other stuff necessary to just survive with git. And the fact they keep hearing rebase is a dangerous command makes them keep postponing it's learning.
So if this applies to you too, stay with me to learn how git rebase works on a simple example.
Say you are on your project's
master branch (we’ll display only the last 4 commits):
Now you want to develop some cool new feature on a different branch so you create one with
git checkout -b feature and make two commits. Now your
feature branches look like this:
But now someone reports a bug on your application and you quickly switch (checkout) to your
master branch to find and fix the bug. After some time you do fix it and push (and deploy) the change. Everything is fine again and you can come back to your
But now you realize you have a little problem. Your
feature branch still has that same bug that you fixed on the
master branch and you realize that the bug will also affect your new code on the
feature branch, so you need to incorporate those bug-fixing changes (commit) to your
feature branch. But how? Well, there are a few ways to achieve that but the best would be if you could just go back in time like Doc and Marty did, and do the bug-fix commit before you made the
feature branch. That way the commit that has the bug fixing code would be contained in the
feature branch (once you get back to the future). Well, turns out you can do just that. I mean, not actually go back in time but alter (git) history. And you do it with the rebase command. So, if you are on your
feature branch and you do:
git rebase master
This is how your branches are gonna look like afterward:
As you see, the history of the
feature branch has changed. If someone would now look at it he/she would think you made (checked out) your
feature branch after the bug fixing commit.
So this is great right? Why just not use it all the time? Well, there is a catch. Remember how when Doc and Marty came back to the future it was a bit different? Well, that happens with git rebase too, but don’t worry, your code will stay the same, only the checksums of the commits on your
feature branch will change. And what are these checksums? Well, you probably noticed that 40-chars long string that you see right to every commit when you do
commit f5cad47722bc98419fe5037753f5bbe29d3917c4 Author: John Doe <email@example.com> Date: Mon Apr 23 11:49:07 2018 +0200 Did some stuff:)
That's the checksum. You can think of checksums as unique identifiers for commits and because of the way git generates them (you can check my blog post on git’s data model for more info) they change on our
feature branch after rebase.
And this is why you keep hearing git rebase is a dangerous command. Because it alters history and you should use it with caution.
But why exactly is this dangerous and when? Well, let’s say you are not the only one working on the
feature branch, but there are more people pulling and pushing changes to it. And now you do your rebase and (force) push the changes to the
feature remote. Now, when your colleague Bob tries to pull from the remote
feature, everything explodes because his local version of
feature branch has a different history than the remote version.
OK, so Bob’s computer won't actually explode, but there is no nice way for him to fix this situation. So, as a general rule of thumb, if you are working on a public branch (that other people are pulling changes from), you will not do a rebase on that branch. If, on the other hand, you are working on your local branch and haven’t pushed it to the remote server yet, or you did but it is still only you who is working on that branch (you must be sure of that) then you can do a rebase on it.