有两种方法

您希望将主分支合并到您的分支中 - git checkout master - git拉 - git checkout your-feature-branch - git merge master //解决冲突并提交 - git push

2:如果你想在main的基础上重新调整你的改变。

 git checkout master #Switch to main branch
 git pull #Take latest
 git checkout your-feature-branch #Switch to story branch
 git pull --ff-only # Ensure branch is up to date
 git rebase -i origin master #Interactively rebase your commits on top of master. So your changes are on top of latest commits in main.
 git rebase --continue #Resolve conflicts and rebase --continue to continue with next commits
 git push -f origin your-feature-branch # As you have rewritten the commit history, you have to **force push** the commits

对于这个问题有两种选择。

1） Git 变基

2）去合并

只有与上述两者不同的合并情况下，将有额外的历史提交

1) git结帐分支(b1,b2,b3)

2) git rebase origin/master(如果冲突可以通过git rebase -continue在本地解决)

3）去推

或者，git合并选项是类似的方式

1) git checkout“your_branch”(b1,b2,b3)

2）转到合并母版

3）去推

从master更新你的分支:

  git checkout master
  git pull
  git checkout your_branch
  git merge master

你基本上有两个选择:

You merge. That is actually quite simple, and a perfectly local operation: git checkout b1 git merge master # repeat for b2 and b3 This leaves the history exactly as it happened: You forked from master, you made changes to all branches, and finally you incorporated the changes from master into all three branches. git can handle this situation really well, it is designed for merges happening in all directions, at the same time. You can trust it be able to get all threads together correctly. It simply does not care whether branch b1 merges master, or master merges b1, the merge commit looks all the same to git. The only difference is, which branch ends up pointing to this merge commit. You rebase. People with an SVN, or similar background find this more intuitive. The commands are analogue to the merge case: git checkout b1 git rebase master # repeat for b2 and b3 People like this approach because it retains a linear history in all branches. However, this linear history is a lie, and you should be aware that it is. Consider this commit graph: A --- B --- C --- D <-- master \ \-- E --- F --- G <-- b1 The merge results in the true history: A --- B --- C --- D <-- master \ \ \-- E --- F --- G +-- H <-- b1 The rebase, however, gives you this history: A --- B --- C --- D <-- master \ \-- E' --- F' --- G' <-- b1 The point is, that the commits E', F', and G' never truly existed, and have likely never been tested. They may not even compile. It is actually quite easy to create nonsensical commits via a rebase, especially when the changes in master are important to the development in b1. The consequence of this may be, that you can't distinguish which of the three commits E, F, and G actually introduced a regression, diminishing the value of git bisect. I am not saying that you shouldn't use git rebase. It has its uses. But whenever you do use it, you need to be aware of the fact that you are lying about history. And you should at least compile test the new commits.

您可以合并，也可以使用git的选择性跨分支应用单独的提交。

对于每个发现这个线程的人来说，寻找一个易于使用和一致的解决方案来合并您当前的分支与master上的最新更改:

你可以把它添加到你的shell配置中:

alias merge='currentBranch=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD) && git checkout master && git pull && git checkout $currentBranch && git merge master'

这个别名使用5个命令:

currentBranch=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD) # gets your current branch(needed for point 4)
git checkout master # checks out master
git pull # gets latest changes from master
git checkout $currentBranch # checks out the in point 1 saved branch
git merge master # merges your current branch with master

在添加别名之后，您可以简单地使用“merge”命令来“更新”当前正在处理的分支。