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

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。

你有两个选择:

第一个是合并，但是这为合并创建了一个额外的提交。

检查每个分支:

git checkout b1

然后合并:

git merge origin/master

然后推:

git push origin b1

或者，你可以做一个rebase:

git fetch
git rebase origin/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.

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。

用你的主分支副本更新其他分支，如(备份)。 你可以按照任何一种方式(rebase或merge)…

做rebase(不会有任何额外的提交到备份分支)。 合并分支(将有一个额外的自动提交到 备份分支)。 注:Rebase只是建立一个新的base(一个新的副本)

git 结帐备份 Git 合并大师 git push

(重复执行其他分支，如backup2等)

git 结帐备份 git 变基大师 git push

(重复执行其他分支，如backup2等)