Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)

FreeBSD Manual Pages


home | help
GIT-REBASE(1)			  Git Manual			 GIT-REBASE(1)

       git-rebase - Reapply commits on top of another base tip

       git rebase [-i |	--interactive] [<options>] [--exec <cmd>]
	       [--onto <newbase> | --keep-base]	[<upstream> [<branch>]]
       git rebase [-i |	--interactive] [<options>] [--exec <cmd>] [--onto <newbase>]
	       --root [<branch>]
       git rebase (--continue |	--skip | --abort | --quit | --edit-todo	| --show-current-patch)

       If <branch> is specified, git rebase will perform an automatic git
       switch <branch> before doing anything else. Otherwise it	remains	on the
       current branch.

       If <upstream> is	not specified, the upstream configured in
       branch.<name>.remote and	branch.<name>.merge options will be used (see
       git-config(1) for details) and the --fork-point option is assumed. If
       you are currently not on	any branch or if the current branch does not
       have a configured upstream, the rebase will abort.

       All changes made	by commits in the current branch but that are not in
       <upstream> are saved to a temporary area. This is the same set of
       commits that would be shown by git log <upstream>..HEAD;	or by git log
       'fork_point'..HEAD, if --fork-point is active (see the description on
       --fork-point below); or by git log HEAD,	if the --root option is

       The current branch is reset to <upstream>, or <newbase> if the --onto
       option was supplied. This has the exact same effect as git reset	--hard
       <upstream> (or <newbase>). ORIG_HEAD is set to point at the tip of the
       branch before the reset.

       The commits that	were previously	saved into the temporary area are then
       reapplied to the	current	branch,	one by one, in order. Note that	any
       commits in HEAD which introduce the same	textual	changes	as a commit in
       HEAD..<upstream>	are omitted (i.e., a patch already accepted upstream
       with a different	commit message or timestamp will be skipped).

       It is possible that a merge failure will	prevent	this process from
       being completely	automatic. You will have to resolve any	such merge
       failure and run git rebase --continue. Another option is	to bypass the
       commit that caused the merge failure with git rebase --skip. To check
       out the original	<branch> and remove the	.git/rebase-apply working
       files, use the command git rebase --abort instead.

       Assume the following history exists and the current branch is "topic":

		     A---B---C topic
	       D---E---F---G master

       From this point,	the result of either of	the following commands:

	   git rebase master
	   git rebase master topic

       would be:

			     A'--B'--C'	topic
	       D---E---F---G master

       NOTE: The latter	form is	just a short-hand of git checkout topic
       followed	by git rebase master. When rebase exits	topic will remain the
       checked-out branch.

       If the upstream branch already contains a change	you have made (e.g.,
       because you mailed a patch which	was applied upstream), then that
       commit will be skipped. For example, running git	rebase master on the
       following history (in which A' and A introduce the same set of changes,
       but have	different committer information):

		     A---B---C topic
	       D---E---A'---F master

       will result in:

			      B'---C' topic
	       D---E---A'---F master

       Here is how you would transplant	a topic	branch based on	one branch to
       another,	to pretend that	you forked the topic branch from the latter
       branch, using rebase --onto.

       First let's assume your topic is	based on branch	next. For example, a
       feature developed in topic depends on some functionality	which is found
       in next.

	       o---o---o---o---o  master
		     o---o---o---o---o	next
				       o---o---o  topic

       We want to make topic forked from branch	master;	for example, because
       the functionality on which topic	depends	was merged into	the more
       stable master branch. We	want our tree to look like this:

	       o---o---o---o---o  master
		   |		\
		   |		 o'--o'--o'  topic
		     o---o---o---o---o	next

       We can get this using the following command:

	   git rebase --onto master next topic

       Another example of --onto option	is to rebase part of a branch. If we
       have the	following situation:

				       H---I---J topicB
			     E---F---G	topicA
	       A---B---C---D  master

       then the	command

	   git rebase --onto master topicA topicB

       would result in:

			    H'--I'--J'	topicB
			   | E---F---G	topicA
	       A---B---C---D  master

       This is useful when topicB does not depend on topicA.

       A range of commits could	also be	removed	with rebase. If	we have	the
       following situation:

	       E---F---G---H---I---J  topicA

       then the	command

	   git rebase --onto topicA~5 topicA~3 topicA

       would result in the removal of commits F	and G:

	       E---H'---I'---J'	 topicA

       This is useful if F and G were flawed in	some way, or should not	be
       part of topicA. Note that the argument to --onto	and the	<upstream>
       parameter can be	any valid commit-ish.

       In case of conflict, git	rebase will stop at the	first problematic
       commit and leave	conflict markers in the	tree. You can use git diff to
       locate the markers (<<<<<<) and make edits to resolve the conflict. For
       each file you edit, you need to tell Git	that the conflict has been
       resolved, typically this	would be done with

	   git add <filename>

       After resolving the conflict manually and updating the index with the
       desired resolution, you can continue the	rebasing process with

	   git rebase --continue

       Alternatively, you can undo the git rebase with

	   git rebase --abort

	   Unused configuration	variable. Used in Git versions 2.20 and	2.21
	   as an escape	hatch to enable	the legacy shellscript implementation
	   of rebase. Now the built-in rewrite of it in	C is always used.
	   Setting this	will emit a warning, to	alert any remaining users that
	   setting this	now does nothing.

	   Default backend to use for rebasing.	Possible choices are apply or
	   merge. In the future, if the	merge backend gains all	remaining
	   capabilities	of the apply backend, this setting may become unused.

	   Whether to show a diffstat of what changed upstream since the last
	   rebase. False by default.

	   If set to true enable --autosquash option by	default.

	   When	set to true, automatically create a temporary stash entry
	   before the operation	begins,	and apply it after the operation ends.
	   This	means that you can run rebase on a dirty worktree. However,
	   use with care: the final stash application after a successful
	   rebase might	result in non-trivial conflicts. This option can be
	   overridden by the --no-autostash and	--autostash options of git-
	   rebase(1). Defaults to false.

	   If set to "warn", git rebase	-i will	print a	warning	if some
	   commits are removed (e.g. a line was	deleted), however the rebase
	   will	still proceed. If set to "error", it will print	the previous
	   warning and stop the	rebase,	git rebase --edit-todo can then	be
	   used	to correct the error. If set to	"ignore", no checking is done.
	   To drop a commit without warning or error, use the drop command in
	   the todo list. Defaults to "ignore".

	   A format string, as specified in git-log(1),	to be used for the
	   todo	list during an interactive rebase. The format will
	   automatically have the long commit hash prepended to	the format.

	   If set to true, git rebase will use abbreviated command names in
	   the todo list resulting in something	like this:

		       p deadbee The oneline of	the commit
		       p fa1afe1 The oneline of	the next commit

	   instead of:

		       pick deadbee The	oneline	of the commit
		       pick fa1afe1 The	oneline	of the next commit

	   Defaults to false.

	   Automatically reschedule exec commands that failed. This only makes
	   sense in interactive	mode (or when an --exec	option was provided).
	   This	is the same as specifying the --reschedule-failed-exec option.

       --onto <newbase>
	   Starting point at which to create the new commits. If the --onto
	   option is not specified, the	starting point is <upstream>. May be
	   any valid commit, and not just an existing branch name.

	   As a	special	case, you may use "A...B" as a shortcut	for the	merge
	   base	of A and B if there is exactly one merge base. You can leave
	   out at most one of A	and B, in which	case it	defaults to HEAD.

	   Set the starting point at which to create the new commits to	the
	   merge base of <upstream> <branch>. Running git rebase --keep-base
	   _upstream_ _branch_ is equivalent to	running	git rebase --onto
	   _upstream_... _upstream_.

	   This	option is useful in the	case where one is developing a feature
	   on top of an	upstream branch. While the feature is being worked on,
	   the upstream	branch may advance and it may not be the best idea to
	   keep	rebasing on top	of the upstream	but to keep the	base commit

	   Although both this option and --fork-point find the merge base
	   between <upstream> and <branch>, this option	uses the merge base as
	   the starting	point on which new commits will	be created, whereas
	   --fork-point	uses the merge base to determine the set of commits
	   which will be rebased.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

	   Upstream branch to compare against. May be any valid	commit,	not
	   just	an existing branch name. Defaults to the configured upstream
	   for the current branch.

	   Working branch; defaults to HEAD.

	   Restart the rebasing	process	after having resolved a	merge

	   Abort the rebase operation and reset	HEAD to	the original branch.
	   If <branch> was provided when the rebase operation was started,
	   then	HEAD will be reset to <branch>.	Otherwise HEAD will be reset
	   to where it was when	the rebase operation was started.

	   Abort the rebase operation but HEAD is not reset back to the
	   original branch. The	index and working tree are also	left unchanged
	   as a	result.	If a temporary stash entry was created using
	   --autostash,	it will	be saved to the	stash list.

	   Use applying	strategies to rebase (calling git-am internally). This
	   option may become a no-op in	the future once	the merge backend
	   handles everything the apply	one does.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

	   How to handle commits that are not empty to start and are not clean
	   cherry-picks	of any upstream	commit,	but which become empty after
	   rebasing (because they contain a subset of already upstream
	   changes). With drop (the default), commits that become empty	are
	   dropped. With keep, such commits are	kept. With ask (implied	by
	   --interactive), the rebase will halt	when an	empty commit is
	   applied allowing you	to choose whether to drop it, edit files more,
	   or just commit the empty changes. Other options, like --exec, will
	   use the default of drop unless -i/--interactive is explicitly

	   Note	that commits which start empty are kept	(unless
	   --no-keep-empty is specified), and commits which are	clean
	   cherry-picks	(as determined by git log --cherry-mark	...) are
	   detected and	dropped	as a preliminary step (unless
	   --reapply-cherry-picks is passed).

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       --no-keep-empty,	--keep-empty
	   Do not keep commits that start empty	before the rebase (i.e.	that
	   do not change anything from its parent) in the result. The default
	   is to keep commits which start empty, since creating	such commits
	   requires passing the	--allow-empty override flag to git commit,
	   signifying that a user is very intentionally	creating such a	commit
	   and thus wants to keep it.

	   Usage of this flag will probably be rare, since you can get rid of
	   commits that	start empty by just firing up an interactive rebase
	   and removing	the lines corresponding	to the commits you don't want.
	   This	flag exists as a convenient shortcut, such as for cases	where
	   external tools generate many	empty commits and you want them	all

	   For commits which do	not start empty	but become empty after
	   rebasing, see the --empty flag.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       --reapply-cherry-picks, --no-reapply-cherry-picks
	   Reapply all clean cherry-picks of any upstream commit instead of
	   preemptively	dropping them. (If these commits then become empty
	   after rebasing, because they	contain	a subset of already upstream
	   changes, the	behavior towards them is controlled by the --empty

	   By default (or if --no-reapply-cherry-picks is given), these
	   commits will	be automatically dropped. Because this necessitates
	   reading all upstream	commits, this can be expensive in repos	with a
	   large number	of upstream commits that need to be read.

	   --reapply-cherry-picks allows rebase	to forgo reading all upstream
	   commits, potentially	improving performance.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

	   No-op. Rebasing commits with	an empty message used to fail and this
	   option would	override that behavior,	allowing commits with empty
	   messages to be rebased. Now commits with an empty message do	not
	   cause rebasing to halt.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

	   Restart the rebasing	process	by skipping the	current	patch.

	   Edit	the todo list during an	interactive rebase.

	   Show	the current patch in an	interactive rebase or when rebase is
	   stopped because of conflicts. This is the equivalent	of git show

       -m, --merge
	   Use merging strategies to rebase. When the recursive	(default)
	   merge strategy is used, this	allows rebase to be aware of renames
	   on the upstream side. This is the default.

	   Note	that a rebase merge works by replaying each commit from	the
	   working branch on top of the	<upstream> branch. Because of this,
	   when	a merge	conflict happens, the side reported as ours is the
	   so-far rebased series, starting with	<upstream>, and	theirs is the
	   working branch. In other words, the sides are swapped.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       -s <strategy>, --strategy=<strategy>
	   Use the given merge strategy. If there is no	-s option git
	   merge-recursive is used instead. This implies --merge.

	   Because git rebase replays each commit from the working branch on
	   top of the <upstream> branch	using the given	strategy, using	the
	   ours	strategy simply	empties	all patches from the <branch>, which
	   makes little	sense.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       -X <strategy-option>, --strategy-option=<strategy-option>
	   Pass	the <strategy-option> through to the merge strategy. This
	   implies --merge and,	if no strategy has been	specified, -s
	   recursive. Note the reversal	of ours	and theirs as noted above for
	   the -m option.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       --rerere-autoupdate, --no-rerere-autoupdate
	   Allow the rerere mechanism to update	the index with the result of
	   auto-conflict resolution if possible.

       -S[<keyid>], --gpg-sign[=<keyid>], --no-gpg-sign
	   GPG-sign commits. The keyid argument	is optional and	defaults to
	   the committer identity; if specified, it must be stuck to the
	   option without a space.  --no-gpg-sign is useful to countermand
	   both	commit.gpgSign configuration variable, and earlier --gpg-sign.

       -q, --quiet
	   Be quiet. Implies --no-stat.

       -v, --verbose
	   Be verbose. Implies --stat.

	   Show	a diffstat of what changed upstream since the last rebase. The
	   diffstat is also controlled by the configuration option

       -n, --no-stat
	   Do not show a diffstat as part of the rebase	process.

	   This	option bypasses	the pre-rebase hook. See also githooks(5).

	   Allows the pre-rebase hook to run, which is the default. This
	   option can be used to override --no-verify. See also	githooks(5).

	   Ensure at least <n> lines of	surrounding context match before and
	   after each change. When fewer lines of surrounding context exist
	   they	all must match.	By default no context is ever ignored. Implies

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       --no-ff,	--force-rebase,	-f
	   Individually	replay all rebased commits instead of fast-forwarding
	   over	the unchanged ones. This ensures that the entire history of
	   the rebased branch is composed of new commits.

	   You may find	this helpful after reverting a topic branch merge, as
	   this	option recreates the topic branch with fresh commits so	it can
	   be remerged successfully without needing to "revert the reversion"
	   (see	the revert-a-faulty-merge How-To[1] for	details).

       --fork-point, --no-fork-point
	   Use reflog to find a	better common ancestor between <upstream> and
	   <branch> when calculating which commits have	been introduced	by

	   When	--fork-point is	active,	fork_point will	be used	instead	of
	   <upstream> to calculate the set of commits to rebase, where
	   fork_point is the result of git merge-base --fork-point <upstream>
	   <branch> command (see git-merge-base(1)). If	fork_point ends	up
	   being empty,	the <upstream> will be used as a fallback.

	   If <upstream> is given on the command line, then the	default	is
	   --no-fork-point, otherwise the default is --fork-point.

	   If your branch was based on <upstream> but <upstream> was rewound
	   and your branch contains commits which were dropped,	this option
	   can be used with --keep-base	in order to drop those commits from
	   your	branch.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       --ignore-whitespace, --whitespace=<option>
	   These flags are passed to the git apply program (see	git-apply(1))
	   that	applies	the patch. Implies --apply.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       --committer-date-is-author-date,	--ignore-date
	   These flags are passed to git am to easily change the dates of the
	   rebased commits (see	git-am(1)).

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

	   Add a Signed-off-by:	trailer	to all the rebased commits. Note that
	   if --interactive is given then only commits marked to be picked,
	   edited or reworded will have	the trailer added.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       -i, --interactive
	   Make	a list of the commits which are	about to be rebased. Let the
	   user	edit that list before rebasing.	This mode can also be used to
	   split commits (see SPLITTING	COMMITS	below).

	   The commit list format can be changed by setting the	configuration
	   option rebase.instructionFormat. A customized instruction format
	   will	automatically have the long commit hash	prepended to the

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       -r, --rebase-merges[=(rebase-cousins|no-rebase-cousins)]
	   By default, a rebase	will simply drop merge commits from the	todo
	   list, and put the rebased commits into a single, linear branch.
	   With	--rebase-merges, the rebase will instead try to	preserve the
	   branching structure within the commits that are to be rebased, by
	   recreating the merge	commits. Any resolved merge conflicts or
	   manual amendments in	these merge commits will have to be
	   resolved/re-applied manually.

	   By default, or when no-rebase-cousins was specified,	commits	which
	   do not have <upstream> as direct ancestor will keep their original
	   branch point, i.e. commits that would be excluded by	git-log(1)'s
	   --ancestry-path option will keep their original ancestry by
	   default. If the rebase-cousins mode is turned on, such commits are
	   instead rebased onto	<upstream> (or <onto>, if specified).

	   The --rebase-merges mode is similar in spirit to the	deprecated
	   --preserve-merges but works with interactive	rebases, where commits
	   can be reordered, inserted and dropped at will.

	   It is currently only	possible to recreate the merge commits using
	   the recursive merge strategy; Different merge strategies can	be
	   used	only via explicit exec git merge -s <strategy> [...]


       -p, --preserve-merges
	   [DEPRECATED:	use --rebase-merges instead] Recreate merge commits
	   instead of flattening the history by	replaying commits a merge
	   commit introduces. Merge conflict resolutions or manual amendments
	   to merge commits are	not preserved.

	   This	uses the --interactive machinery internally, but combining it
	   with	the --interactive option explicitly is generally not a good
	   idea	unless you know	what you are doing (see	BUGS below).

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       -x <cmd>, --exec	<cmd>
	   Append "exec	<cmd>" after each line creating	a commit in the	final
	   history. <cmd> will be interpreted as one or	more shell commands.
	   Any command that fails will interrupt the rebase, with exit code 1.

	   You may execute several commands by either using one	instance of
	   --exec with several commands:

	       git rebase -i --exec "cmd1 && cmd2 && ..."

	   or by giving	more than one --exec:

	       git rebase -i --exec "cmd1" --exec "cmd2" --exec	...

	   If --autosquash is used, "exec" lines will not be appended for the
	   intermediate	commits, and will only appear at the end of each
	   squash/fixup	series.

	   This	uses the --interactive machinery internally, but it can	be run
	   without an explicit --interactive.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

	   Rebase all commits reachable	from <branch>, instead of limiting
	   them	with an	<upstream>. This allows	you to rebase the root
	   commit(s) on	a branch. When used with --onto, it will skip changes
	   already contained in	<newbase> (instead of <upstream>) whereas
	   without --onto it will operate on every change. When	used together
	   with	both --onto and	--preserve-merges, all root commits will be
	   rewritten to	have <newbase> as parent instead.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       --autosquash, --no-autosquash
	   When	the commit log message begins with "squash! ..." (or "fixup!
	   ..."), and there is already a commit	in the todo list that matches
	   the same ..., automatically modify the todo list of rebase -i so
	   that	the commit marked for squashing	comes right after the commit
	   to be modified, and change the action of the	moved commit from pick
	   to squash (or fixup). A commit matches the ...  if the commit
	   subject matches, or if the ...  refers to the commit's hash.	As a
	   fall-back, partial matches of the commit subject work, too. The
	   recommended way to create fixup/squash commits is by	using the
	   --fixup/--squash options of git-commit(1).

	   If the --autosquash option is enabled by default using the
	   configuration variable rebase.autoSquash, this option can be	used
	   to override and disable this	setting.

	   See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.

       --autostash, --no-autostash
	   Automatically create	a temporary stash entry	before the operation
	   begins, and apply it	after the operation ends. This means that you
	   can run rebase on a dirty worktree. However,	use with care: the
	   final stash application after a successful rebase might result in
	   non-trivial conflicts.

       --reschedule-failed-exec, --no-reschedule-failed-exec
	   Automatically reschedule exec commands that failed. This only makes
	   sense in interactive	mode (or when an --exec	option was provided).

       The following options:

       o   --apply

       o   --committer-date-is-author-date

       o   --ignore-date

       o   --ignore-whitespace

       o   --whitespace

       o   -C

       are incompatible	with the following options:

       o   --merge

       o   --strategy

       o   --strategy-option

       o   --allow-empty-message

       o   --[no-]autosquash

       o   --rebase-merges

       o   --preserve-merges

       o   --interactive

       o   --exec

       o   --no-keep-empty

       o   --empty=

       o   --reapply-cherry-picks

       o   --edit-todo

       o   --root when used in combination with	--onto

       In addition, the	following pairs	of options are incompatible:

       o   --preserve-merges and --interactive

       o   --preserve-merges and --signoff

       o   --preserve-merges and --rebase-merges

       o   --preserve-merges and --empty=

       o   --keep-base and --onto

       o   --keep-base and --root

       o   --fork-point	and --root

       git rebase has two primary backends: apply and merge. (The apply
       backend used to be known	as the am backend, but the name	led to
       confusion as it looks like a verb instead of a noun. Also, the merge
       backend used to be known	as the interactive backend, but	it is now used
       for non-interactive cases as well. Both were renamed based on
       lower-level functionality that underpinned each.) There are some	subtle
       differences in how these	two backends behave:

   Empty commits
       The apply backend unfortunately drops intentionally empty commits, i.e.
       commits that started empty, though these	are rare in practice. It also
       drops commits that become empty and has no option for controlling this

       The merge backend keeps intentionally empty commits by default (though
       with -i they are	marked as empty	in the todo list editor, or they can
       be dropped automatically	with --no-keep-empty).

       Similar to the apply backend, by	default	the merge backend drops
       commits that become empty unless	-i/--interactive is specified (in
       which case it stops and asks the	user what to do). The merge backend
       also has	an --empty={drop,keep,ask} option for changing the behavior of
       handling	commits	that become empty.

   Directory rename detection
       Due to the lack of accurate tree	information (arising from constructing
       fake ancestors with the limited information available in	patches),
       directory rename	detection is disabled in the apply backend. Disabled
       directory rename	detection means	that if	one side of history renames a
       directory and the other adds new	files to the old directory, then the
       new files will be left behind in	the old	directory without any warning
       at the time of rebasing that you	may want to move these files into the
       new directory.

       Directory rename	detection works	with the merge backend to provide you
       warnings	in such	cases.

       The apply backend works by creating a sequence of patches (by calling
       format-patch internally), and then applying the patches in sequence
       (calling	am internally).	Patches	are composed of	multiple hunks,	each
       with line numbers, a context region, and	the actual changes. The	line
       numbers have to be taken	with some fuzz,	since the other	side will
       likely have inserted or deleted lines earlier in	the file. The context
       region is meant to help find how	to adjust the line numbers in order to
       apply the changes to the	right lines. However, if multiple areas	of the
       code have the same surrounding lines of context,	the wrong one can be
       picked. There are real-world cases where	this has caused	commits	to be
       reapplied incorrectly with no conflicts reported. Setting diff.context
       to a larger value may prevent such types	of problems, but increases the
       chance of spurious conflicts (since it will require more	lines of
       matching	context	to apply).

       The merge backend works with a full copy	of each	relevant file,
       insulating it from these	types of problems.

   Labelling of	conflicts markers
       When there are content conflicts, the merge machinery tries to annotate
       each side's conflict markers with the commits where the content came
       from. Since the apply backend drops the original	information about the
       rebased commits and their parents (and instead generates	new fake
       commits based off limited information in	the generated patches),	those
       commits cannot be identified; instead it	has to fall back to a commit
       summary.	Also, when merge.conflictStyle is set to diff3,	the apply
       backend will use	"constructed merge base" to label the content from the
       merge base, and thus provide no information about the merge base	commit

       The merge backend works with the	full commits on	both sides of history
       and thus	has no such limitations.

       The apply backend has not traditionally called the post-commit hook,
       while the merge backend has. Both have called the post-checkout hook,
       though the merge	backend	has squelched its output. Further, both
       backends	only call the post-checkout hook with the starting point
       commit of the rebase, not the intermediate commits nor the final
       commit. In each case, the calling of these hooks	was by accident	of
       implementation rather than by design (both backends were	originally
       implemented as shell scripts and	happened to invoke other commands like
       git checkout or git commit that would call the hooks). Both backends
       should have the same behavior, though it	is not entirely	clear which,
       if any, is correct. We will likely make rebase stop calling either of
       these hooks in the future.

       The apply backend has safety problems with an ill-timed interrupt; if
       the user	presses	Ctrl-C at the wrong time to try	to abort the rebase,
       the rebase can enter a state where it cannot be aborted with a
       subsequent git rebase --abort. The merge	backend	does not appear	to
       suffer from the same shortcoming. (See for

   Commit Rewording
       When a conflict occurs while rebasing, rebase stops and asks the	user
       to resolve. Since the user may need to make notable changes while
       resolving conflicts, after conflicts are	resolved and the user has run
       git rebase --continue, the rebase should	open an	editor and ask the
       user to update the commit message. The merge backend does this, while
       the apply backend blindly applies the original commit message.

   Miscellaneous differences
       There are a few more behavioral differences that	most folks would
       probably	consider inconsequential but which are mentioned for

       o   Reflog: The two backends will use different wording when describing
	   the changes made in the reflog, though both will make use of	the
	   word	"rebase".

       o   Progress, informational, and	error messages:	The two	backends
	   provide slightly different progress and informational messages.
	   Also, the apply backend writes error	messages (such as "Your	files
	   would be overwritten...") to	stdout,	while the merge	backend	writes
	   them	to stderr.

       o   State directories: The two backends keep their state	in different
	   directories under .git/

       The merge mechanism (git	merge and git pull commands) allows the
       backend merge strategies	to be chosen with -s option. Some strategies
       can also	take their own options,	which can be passed by giving
       -X<option> arguments to git merge and/or	git pull.

	   This	can only resolve two heads (i.e. the current branch and
	   another branch you pulled from) using a 3-way merge algorithm. It
	   tries to carefully detect criss-cross merge ambiguities and is
	   considered generally	safe and fast.

	   This	can only resolve two heads using a 3-way merge algorithm. When
	   there is more than one common ancestor that can be used for 3-way
	   merge, it creates a merged tree of the common ancestors and uses
	   that	as the reference tree for the 3-way merge. This	has been
	   reported to result in fewer merge conflicts without causing
	   mismerges by	tests done on actual merge commits taken from Linux
	   2.6 kernel development history. Additionally	this can detect	and
	   handle merges involving renames, but	currently cannot make use of
	   detected copies. This is the	default	merge strategy when pulling or
	   merging one branch.

	   The recursive strategy can take the following options:

	       This option forces conflicting hunks to be auto-resolved
	       cleanly by favoring our version.	Changes	from the other tree
	       that do not conflict with our side are reflected	in the merge
	       result. For a binary file, the entire contents are taken	from
	       our side.

	       This should not be confused with	the ours merge strategy, which
	       does not	even look at what the other tree contains at all. It
	       discards	everything the other tree did, declaring our history
	       contains	all that happened in it.

	       This is the opposite of ours; note that,	unlike ours, there is
	       no theirs merge strategy	to confuse this	merge option with.

	       With this option, merge-recursive spends	a little extra time to
	       avoid mismerges that sometimes occur due	to unimportant
	       matching	lines (e.g., braces from distinct functions). Use this
	       when the	branches to be merged have diverged wildly. See	also
	       git-diff(1) --patience.

	       Tells merge-recursive to	use a different	diff algorithm,	which
	       can help	avoid mismerges	that occur due to unimportant matching
	       lines (such as braces from distinct functions). See also	git-
	       diff(1) --diff-algorithm.

	   ignore-space-change,	ignore-all-space, ignore-space-at-eol,
	       Treats lines with the indicated type of whitespace change as
	       unchanged for the sake of a three-way merge. Whitespace changes
	       mixed with other	changes	to a line are not ignored. See also
	       git-diff(1) -b, -w, --ignore-space-at-eol, and

	       o   If their version only introduces whitespace changes to a
		   line, our version is	used;

	       o   If our version introduces whitespace	changes	but their
		   version includes a substantial change, their	version	is

	       o   Otherwise, the merge	proceeds in the	usual way.

	       This runs a virtual check-out and check-in of all three stages
	       of a file when resolving	a three-way merge. This	option is
	       meant to	be used	when merging branches with different clean
	       filters or end-of-line normalization rules. See "Merging
	       branches	with differing checkin/checkout	attributes" in
	       gitattributes(5)	for details.

	       Disables	the renormalize	option.	This overrides the
	       merge.renormalize configuration variable.

	       Turn off	rename detection. This overrides the merge.renames
	       configuration variable. See also	git-diff(1) --no-renames.

	       Turn on rename detection, optionally setting the	similarity
	       threshold. This is the default. This overrides the
	       merge.renames configuration variable. See also git-diff(1)

	       Deprecated synonym for find-renames=<n>.

	       This option is a	more advanced form of subtree strategy,	where
	       the strategy makes a guess on how two trees must	be shifted to
	       match with each other when merging. Instead, the	specified path
	       is prefixed (or stripped	from the beginning) to make the	shape
	       of two trees to match.

	   This	resolves cases with more than two heads, but refuses to	do a
	   complex merge that needs manual resolution. It is primarily meant
	   to be used for bundling topic branch	heads together.	This is	the
	   default merge strategy when pulling or merging more than one

	   This	resolves any number of heads, but the resulting	tree of	the
	   merge is always that	of the current branch head, effectively
	   ignoring all	changes	from all other branches. It is meant to	be
	   used	to supersede old development history of	side branches. Note
	   that	this is	different from the -Xours option to the	recursive
	   merge strategy.

	   This	is a modified recursive	strategy. When merging trees A and B,
	   if B	corresponds to a subtree of A, B is first adjusted to match
	   the tree structure of A, instead of reading the trees at the	same
	   level. This adjustment is also done to the common ancestor tree.

       With the	strategies that	use 3-way merge	(including the default,
       recursive), if a	change is made on both branches, but later reverted on
       one of the branches, that change	will be	present	in the merged result;
       some people find	this behavior confusing. It occurs because only	the
       heads and the merge base	are considered when performing a merge,	not
       the individual commits. The merge algorithm therefore considers the
       reverted	change as no change at all, and	substitutes the	changed
       version instead.

       You should understand the implications of using git rebase on a
       repository that you share. See also RECOVERING FROM UPSTREAM REBASE

       When the	git-rebase command is run, it will first execute a
       "pre-rebase" hook if one	exists.	You can	use this hook to do sanity
       checks and reject the rebase if it isn't	appropriate. Please see	the
       template	pre-rebase hook	script for an example.

       Upon completion,	<branch> will be the current branch.

       Rebasing	interactively means that you have a chance to edit the commits
       which are rebased. You can reorder the commits, and you can remove them
       (weeding	out bad	or otherwise unwanted patches).

       The interactive mode is meant for this type of workflow:

	1. have	a wonderful idea

	2. hack	on the code

	3. prepare a series for	submission

	4. submit

       where point 2. consists of several instances of

       a) regular use

	1. finish something worthy of a	commit

	2. commit

       b) independent fixup

	1. realize that	something does not work

	2. fix that

	3. commit it

       Sometimes the thing fixed in b.2. cannot	be amended to the not-quite
       perfect commit it fixes,	because	that commit is buried deeply in	a
       patch series. That is exactly what interactive rebase is	for: use it
       after plenty of "a"s and	"b"s, by rearranging and editing commits, and
       squashing multiple commits into one.

       Start it	with the last commit you want to retain	as-is:

	   git rebase -i <after-this-commit>

       An editor will be fired up with all the commits in your current branch
       (ignoring merge commits), which come after the given commit. You	can
       reorder the commits in this list	to your	heart's	content, and you can
       remove them. The	list looks more	or less	like this:

	   pick	deadbee	The oneline of this commit
	   pick	fa1afe1	The oneline of the next	commit

       The oneline descriptions	are purely for your pleasure; git rebase will
       not look	at them	but at the commit names	("deadbee" and "fa1afe1" in
       this example), so do not	delete or edit the names.

       By replacing the	command	"pick" with the	command	"edit",	you can	tell
       git rebase to stop after	applying that commit, so that you can edit the
       files and/or the	commit message,	amend the commit, and continue

       To interrupt the	rebase (just like an "edit" command would do, but
       without cherry-picking any commit first), use the "break" command.

       If you just want	to edit	the commit message for a commit, replace the
       command "pick" with the command "reword".

       To drop a commit, replace the command "pick" with "drop", or just
       delete the matching line.

       If you want to fold two or more commits into one, replace the command
       "pick" for the second and subsequent commits with "squash" or "fixup".
       If the commits had different authors, the folded	commit will be
       attributed to the author	of the first commit. The suggested commit
       message for the folded commit is	the concatenation of the commit
       messages	of the first commit and	of those with the "squash" command,
       but omits the commit messages of	commits	with the "fixup" command.

       git rebase will stop when "pick"	has been replaced with "edit" or when
       a command fails due to merge errors. When you are done editing and/or
       resolving conflicts you can continue with git rebase --continue.

       For example, if you want	to reorder the last 5 commits, such that what
       was HEAD~4 becomes the new HEAD.	To achieve that, you would call	git
       rebase like this:

	   $ git rebase	-i HEAD~5

       And move	the first patch	to the end of the list.

       You might want to recreate merge	commits, e.g. if you have a history
       like this:


       Suppose you want	to rebase the side branch starting at "A" to "Q". Make
       sure that the current HEAD is "B", and call

	   $ git rebase	-i -r --onto Q O

       Reordering and editing commits usually creates untested intermediate
       steps. You may want to check that your history editing did not break
       anything	by running a test, or at least recompiling at intermediate
       points in history by using the "exec" command (shortcut "x"). You may
       do so by	creating a todo	list like this one:

	   pick	deadbee	Implement feature XXX
	   fixup f1a5c00 Fix to	feature	XXX
	   exec	make
	   pick	c0ffeee	The oneline of the next	commit
	   edit	deadbab	The oneline of the commit after
	   exec	cd subdir; make	test

       The interactive rebase will stop	when a command fails (i.e. exits with
       non-0 status) to	give you an opportunity	to fix the problem. You	can
       continue	with git rebase	--continue.

       The "exec" command launches the command in a shell (the one specified
       in $SHELL, or the default shell if $SHELL is not	set), so you can use
       shell features (like "cd", ">", ";" ...). The command is	run from the
       root of the working tree.

	   $ git rebase	-i --exec "make	test"

       This command lets you check that	intermediate commits are compilable.
       The todo	list becomes like that:

	   pick	5928aea	one
	   exec	make test
	   pick	04d0fda	two
	   exec	make test
	   pick	ba46169	three
	   exec	make test
	   pick	f4593f9	four
	   exec	make test

       In interactive mode, you	can mark commits with the action "edit".
       However,	this does not necessarily mean that git	rebase expects the
       result of this edit to be exactly one commit. Indeed, you can undo the
       commit, or you can add other commits. This can be used to split a
       commit into two:

       o   Start an interactive	rebase with git	rebase -i <commit>^, where
	   <commit> is the commit you want to split. In	fact, any commit range
	   will	do, as long as it contains that	commit.

       o   Mark	the commit you want to split with the action "edit".

       o   When	it comes to editing that commit, execute git reset HEAD^. The
	   effect is that the HEAD is rewound by one, and the index follows
	   suit. However, the working tree stays the same.

       o   Now add the changes to the index that you want to have in the first
	   commit. You can use git add (possibly interactively)	or git gui (or
	   both) to do that.

       o   Commit the now-current index	with whatever commit message is
	   appropriate now.

       o   Repeat the last two steps until your	working	tree is	clean.

       o   Continue the	rebase with git	rebase --continue.

       If you are not absolutely sure that the intermediate revisions are
       consistent (they	compile, pass the testsuite, etc.) you should use git
       stash to	stash away the not-yet-committed changes after each commit,
       test, and amend the commit if fixes are necessary.

       Rebasing	(or any	other form of rewriting) a branch that others have
       based work on is	a bad idea: anyone downstream of it is forced to
       manually	fix their history. This	section	explains how to	do the fix
       from the	downstream's point of view. The	real fix, however, would be to
       avoid rebasing the upstream in the first	place.

       To illustrate, suppose you are in a situation where someone develops a
       subsystem branch, and you are working on	a topic	that is	dependent on
       this subsystem. You might end up	with a history like the	following:

	       o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o  master
		     o---o---o---o---o	subsystem
				       *---*---*  topic

       If subsystem is rebased against master, the following happens:

	       o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o  master
		    \			    \
		     o---o---o---o---o	     o'--o'--o'--o'--o'	 subsystem
				       *---*---*  topic

       If you now continue development as usual, and eventually	merge topic to
       subsystem, the commits from subsystem will remain duplicated forever:

	       o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o  master
		    \			    \
		     o---o---o---o---o	     o'--o'--o'--o'--o'--M  subsystem
				      \				/
				       *---*---*-..........-*--*  topic

       Such duplicates are generally frowned upon because they clutter up
       history,	making it harder to follow. To clean things up,	you need to
       transplant the commits on topic to the new subsystem tip, i.e., rebase
       topic. This becomes a ripple effect: anyone downstream from topic is
       forced to rebase	too, and so on!

       There are two kinds of fixes, discussed in the following	subsections:

       Easy case: The changes are literally the	same.
	   This	happens	if the subsystem rebase	was a simple rebase and	had no

       Hard case: The changes are not the same.
	   This	happens	if the subsystem rebase	had conflicts, or used
	   --interactive to omit, edit,	squash,	or fixup commits; or if	the
	   upstream used one of	commit --amend,	reset, or a full history
	   rewriting command like filter-repo[2].

   The easy case
       Only works if the changes (patch	IDs based on the diff contents)	on
       subsystem are literally the same	before and after the rebase subsystem

       In that case, the fix is	easy because git rebase	knows to skip changes
       that are	already	present	in the new upstream (unless
       --reapply-cherry-picks is given). So if you say (assuming you're	on

	       $ git rebase subsystem

       you will	end up with the	fixed history

	       o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o  master
					     o'--o'--o'--o'--o'	 subsystem
							       *---*---*  topic

   The hard case
       Things get more complicated if the subsystem changes do not exactly
       correspond to the ones before the rebase.

	   While an "easy case recovery" sometimes appears to be successful
	   even	in the hard case, it may have unintended consequences. For
	   example, a commit that was removed via git rebase --interactive
	   will	be resurrected!

       The idea	is to manually tell git	rebase "where the old subsystem	ended
       and your	topic began", that is, what the	old merge base between them
       was. You	will have to find a way	to name	the last commit	of the old
       subsystem, for example:

       o   With	the subsystem reflog: after git	fetch, the old tip of
	   subsystem is	at subsystem@{1}. Subsequent fetches will increase the
	   number. (See	git-reflog(1).)

       o   Relative to the tip of topic: knowing that your topic has three
	   commits, the	old tip	of subsystem must be topic~3.

       You can then transplant the old subsystem..topic	to the new tip by
       saying (for the reflog case, and	assuming you are on topic already):

	       $ git rebase --onto subsystem subsystem@{1}

       The ripple effect of a "hard case" recovery is especially bad: everyone
       downstream from topic will now have to perform a	"hard case" recovery

       The interactive rebase command was originally designed to handle
       individual patch	series.	As such, it makes sense	to exclude merge
       commits from the	todo list, as the developer may	have merged the
       then-current master while working on the	branch,	only to	rebase all the
       commits onto master eventually (skipping	the merge commits).

       However,	there are legitimate reasons why a developer may want to
       recreate	merge commits: to keep the branch structure (or	"commit
       topology") when working on multiple, inter-related branches.

       In the following	example, the developer works on	a topic	branch that
       refactors the way buttons are defined, and on another topic branch that
       uses that refactoring to	implement a "Report a bug" button. The output
       of git log --graph --format=%s -5 may look like this:

	   *   Merge branch 'report-a-bug'
	   | * Add the feedback	button
	   * | Merge branch 'refactor-button'
	   |\ \
	   | |/
	   | * Use the Button class for	all buttons
	   | * Extract a generic Button	class from the DownloadButton one

       The developer might want	to rebase those	commits	to a newer master
       while keeping the branch	topology, for example when the first topic
       branch is expected to be	integrated into	master much earlier than the
       second one, say,	to resolve merge conflicts with	changes	to the
       DownloadButton class that made it into master.

       This rebase can be performed using the --rebase-merges option. It will
       generate	a todo list looking like this:

	   label onto

	   # Branch: refactor-button
	   reset onto
	   pick	123456 Extract a generic Button	class from the DownloadButton one
	   pick	654321 Use the Button class for	all buttons
	   label refactor-button

	   # Branch: report-a-bug
	   reset refactor-button # Use the Button class	for all	buttons
	   pick	abcdef Add the feedback	button
	   label report-a-bug

	   reset onto
	   merge -C a1b2c3 refactor-button # Merge 'refactor-button'
	   merge -C 6f5e4d report-a-bug	# Merge	'report-a-bug'

       In contrast to a	regular	interactive rebase, there are label, reset and
       merge commands in addition to pick ones.

       The label command associates a label with the current HEAD when that
       command is executed. These labels are created as	worktree-local refs
       (refs/rewritten/<label>)	that will be deleted when the rebase finishes.
       That way, rebase	operations in multiple worktrees linked	to the same
       repository do not interfere with	one another. If	the label command
       fails, it is rescheduled	immediately, with a helpful message how	to

       The reset command resets	the HEAD, index	and worktree to	the specified
       revision. It is similar to an exec git reset --hard <label>, but
       refuses to overwrite untracked files. If	the reset command fails, it is
       rescheduled immediately,	with a helpful message how to edit the todo
       list (this typically happens when a reset command was inserted into the
       todo list manually and contains a typo).

       The merge command will merge the	specified revision(s) into whatever is
       HEAD at that time. With -C <original-commit>, the commit	message	of the
       specified merge commit will be used. When the -C	is changed to a
       lower-case -c, the message will be opened in an editor after a
       successful merge	so that	the user can edit the message.

       If a merge command fails	for any	reason other than merge	conflicts
       (i.e. when the merge operation did not even start), it is rescheduled

       At this time, the merge command will always use the recursive merge
       strategy	for regular merges, and	octopus	for octopus merges, with no
       way to choose a different one. To work around this, an exec command can
       be used to call git merge explicitly, using the fact that the labels
       are worktree-local refs (the ref	refs/rewritten/onto would correspond
       to the label onto, for example).

       Note: the first command (label onto) labels the revision	onto which the
       commits are rebased; The	name onto is just a convention,	as a nod to
       the --onto option.

       It is also possible to introduce	completely new merge commits from
       scratch by adding a command of the form merge <merge-head>. This	form
       will generate a tentative commit	message	and always open	an editor to
       let the user edit it. This can be useful	e.g. when a topic branch turns
       out to address more than	a single concern and wants to be split into
       two or even more	topic branches.	Consider this todo list:

	   pick	192837 Switch from GNU Makefiles to CMake
	   pick	5a6c7e Document	the switch to CMake
	   pick	918273 Fix detection of	OpenSSL	in CMake
	   pick	afbecd http: add support for TLS v1.3
	   pick	fdbaec Fix detection of	cURL in	CMake on Windows

       The one commit in this list that	is not related to CMake	may very well
       have been motivated by working on fixing	all those bugs introduced by
       switching to CMake, but it addresses a different	concern. To split this
       branch into two topic branches, the todo	list could be edited like

	   label onto

	   pick	afbecd http: add support for TLS v1.3
	   label tlsv1.3

	   reset onto
	   pick	192837 Switch from GNU Makefiles to CMake
	   pick	918273 Fix detection of	OpenSSL	in CMake
	   pick	fdbaec Fix detection of	cURL in	CMake on Windows
	   pick	5a6c7e Document	the switch to CMake
	   label cmake

	   reset onto
	   merge tlsv1.3
	   merge cmake

       The todo	list presented by the deprecated --preserve-merges
       --interactive does not represent	the topology of	the revision graph
       (use --rebase-merges instead). Editing commits and rewording their
       commit messages should work fine, but attempts to reorder commits tend
       to produce counterintuitive results. Use	--rebase-merges	in such
       scenarios instead.

       For example, an attempt to rearrange

	   1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 --- 5


	   1 --- 2 --- 4 --- 3 --- 5

       by moving the "pick 4" line will	result in the following	history:

	   1 --- 2 --- 4 --- 5

       Part of the git(1) suite

	1. revert-a-faulty-merge How-To

	2. filter-repo

Git 2.28.0			  07/26/2020			 GIT-REBASE(1)


Want to link to this manual page? Use this URL:

home | help