Merging Multiple Branches in Git

have already seen how branches work previously, with "fun and work" example using two branches. The idea is the same if there are more than two branches. Let's say you started out from "master" head, and have some new code in the "master" branch, and two independent fixes in the "commit-fix" and "diff-fix" branches: ------------ $ git show-branch ! [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. ! [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. * [master] Release candidate #1 --- + [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. + [diff-fix~1] Better common substring algorithm. + [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. * [master] Release candidate #1 ++* [diff-fix~2] Pretty-print messages. ------------ Both fixes are tested well, and at this point, you want to merge in both of them. You could merge in 'diff-fix' first and then 'commit-fix' next, like this: ------------ $ git merge -m "Merge fix in diff-fix" diff-fix $ git merge -m "Merge fix in commit-fix" commit-fix ------------ Which would result in: ------------ $ git show-branch ! [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. ! [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. * [master] Merge fix in commit-fix --- - [master] Merge fix in commit-fix + * [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. - [master~1] Merge fix in diff-fix +* [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. +* [diff-fix~1] Better common substring algorithm. * [master~2] Release candidate #1 ++* [master~3] Pretty-print messages. ------------ However, there is no particular reason to merge in one branch first and the other next, when what you have are a set of truly independent changes (if the order mattered, then they are not independent by definition). You could instead merge those two branches into the current branch at once. First let's undo what we just did and start over. We would want to get the master branch before these two merges by resetting it to 'master~2': ------------ $ git reset --hard master~2 ------------ You can make sure `git show-branch` matches the state before those two 'git merge' you just did. Then, instead of running two 'git merge' commands in a row, you would merge these two branch heads (this is known as 'making an Octopus'): ------------ $ git merge commit-fix diff-fix $ git show-branch ! [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. ! [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. * [master] Octopus merge of branches 'diff-fix' and 'commit-fix' --- - [master] Octopus merge of branches 'diff-fix' and 'commit-fix' + * [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. +* [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. +* [diff-fix~1] Better common substring algorithm. * [master~1] Release candidate #1 ++* [master~2] Pretty-print messages. ------------ Note that you should not do Octopus just because you can. An octopus is a valid thing to do and often makes it easier to view the commit history if you are merging more than two independent changes at the same time. However, if you have merge conflicts with any of the branches you are merging in and need to hand resolve, that is an indication that the development happened in those branches were not independent after all, and you should merge two at a time, documenting how you resolved the conflicts, and the reason why you preferred changes made in one side over the other. Otherwise it would make the project history harder to follow, not easier. SEE ALSO -------- linkgit:gittutorial[7], linkgit:gittutorial-2[7], linkgit:gitcvs-migration[7], linkgit:git-help[1], linkgit:giteveryday[7], link:user-manual.html[The Git User's Manual] GIT --- Part of the linkgit:git[1] suite

This section discusses how to merge multiple independent branches in Git, including the use of 'Octopus' merges, and provides guidance on when to use this approach, as well as how to resolve conflicts and maintain a clear project history.