Question: Question:
I created my branch from master, worked on it, and merged it into master.
Since master is developed separately, it will be updated.
At this time, if you want to reflect the latest state of master in My Branch, is it okay to follow the flow of "merge master"?
When I actually tried it, "My branch → master" is displayed in the bitbucket pull request.
The nuance is "catch up with the master", but I couldn't find such an expression in the search, so I'm wondering if it's a different way of thinking or if it's okay to merge.
Or close my branch when master merges my branch,
Should I create a new branch from master every time I make a new change?
Sumimasen with an abstract question. Thank you.
Answer: Answer:
If I want to reflect the latest state of master in my branch, is it okay to follow the flow of "merging master"?
When master merges my branch, close my branch,
Should I create a new branch from master every time I make a new change?
I think that's fine.
It depends on the workflow, but we cut the branch for each ticket and delete the branch after master merging by pull request.
rebase , please refer to the following URL and decide whether to use it after understanding the nature of git. I'm a non- rebase sect.
(Excluding pull requests to sources published on GitHub )
Not scary git
Merits and demerits of rebase