Git checkout master git拉 Git签出feature_branch Git重基master Git push -f

你需要做一个强有力的推动后，对主调基

如果你一直在一个分支上断断续续地工作，或者在你工作的时候其他分支发生了很多事情，最好将你的分支重新建立在master上。这样可以保持历史的整洁，使事情更容易理解。

git checkout master
git pull
git checkout local_branch_name
git rebase master
git push --force # force required if you've already pushed

注:

不要改变你与他人合作的分支。 您应该基于将要合并到的分支，该分支可能并不总是主分支。

http://git-scm.com/book/ch3-6.html上有一章是关于改变基础的，网上还有很多其他的资源。

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.

@cmaster给出了最好的详细回答。简而言之:

git checkout master #
git pull # update local master from remote master
git checkout <your_branch>
git merge master # solve merge conflicts if you have`

您不应该重写分支历史记录，而应该保持它们的实际状态以供将来引用。当合并到master时，它会创建一个额外的提交，但这很便宜。提交不需要成本。

Git rebase master是正确的方法。合并意味着将为合并创建一个提交，而重基则不会。

令人惊讶的是，我最常用的方法没有被提及。这在基于Trunk的开发风格中是很常见的，其中main不断更新，并且从它的分支中工作。

假设main已经有了更新的代码，并且你在分支b1中。如果不是这种情况，您将需要git fetch。

因此，要用main中所做的更改更新b1，只需使用

git pull origin main

当您或其他人到达其他分支并想要更新时，也必须在其他分支中进行相同的操作。