@_RustyRooster Do you update your branches with changes in main this way?

@o_stefanishyna Yes!

@_RustyRooster Equivalent would be "git pull --rebase"

@ramenhost 😳 Really???

@_RustyRooster Just do `git reset --hard origin/<branch>` 😈

@wydmanski_ I’ll try it next time, thanks! 🙏🏻

@_RustyRooster you can set git pull to rebase in the config

@_RustyRooster Git fetch gets all the branches that you don't have locally. Rebase for when you don't wanna write new commit messages. 🤣

@_RustyRooster This was definitely some insight .,.!

@_RustyRooster Nowadays, I work from forks, so I do the following commands to sync my main branch with upstream git fetch upstream main git reset --hard upstream/main This way I fetch only one branch instead of pulling all the garbage. I used to do git pull --ff-only --prune Which is…

@_RustyRooster Jajajaja

@_RustyRooster Fetch only accepts the incoming changes but doesn't update your branch, whereas git pull rebase will update your branch with everyone's changes...

@_RustyRooster Clicks on sync on bitbucket and whistles.

@_RustyRooster At my company we squash prs when merging, so I just do “git fetch && git merge origin/main”.. I dont mind the merge commits in my pr branch

@_RustyRooster If u have enough time to spend I can recommend which gives some nice insights, also on the topic "merge vs rebase"✨

@_RustyRooster I just now read about the differences. Using git rebase instead of git pull can result in a cleaner history by incorporating changes without creating any additional merge commits. super helpful when working as a team. thanks for sharing !!