Git forensics: all changes on dev branch disappeared after merge into master
My team just discovered that all changes (edits, added files) from a development branch disappeared when that branch was merged into "master".
-- A --- B --- D -- "master"
/
-- C -- "dev"
git diff D B shows no differences.
git diff D C shows lots of differences.
There should have been no merge conflicts.
The merge was probably performed using SourceTree.
Is there a simple explanation for how such a thing might have happened? We'd like to avoid doing it again.
Thanks!
git atlassian-sourcetree
asked Nov 14 '18 at 0:50
Joshua R.Joshua R.
1,77411116
add a comment |
My team just discovered that all changes (edits, added files) from a development branch disappeared when that branch was merged into "master".
-- A --- B --- D -- "master"
/
-- C -- "dev"
git diff D B shows no differences.
git diff D C shows lots of differences.
There should have been no merge conflicts.
The merge was probably performed using SourceTree.
Is there a simple explanation for how such a thing might have happened? We'd like to avoid doing it again.
Thanks!
git atlassian-sourcetree
asked Nov 14 '18 at 0:50
Joshua R.Joshua R.
1,77411116
add a comment |
My team just discovered that all changes (edits, added files) from a development branch disappeared when that branch was merged into "master".
-- A --- B --- D -- "master"
/
-- C -- "dev"
git diff D B shows no differences.
git diff D C shows lots of differences.
There should have been no merge conflicts.
The merge was probably performed using SourceTree.
Is there a simple explanation for how such a thing might have happened? We'd like to avoid doing it again.
Thanks!
git atlassian-sourcetree
asked Nov 14 '18 at 0:50
Joshua R.Joshua R.
1,77411116
My team just discovered that all changes (edits, added files) from a development branch disappeared when that branch was merged into "master".
-- A --- B --- D -- "master"
/
-- C -- "dev"
git diff D B shows no differences.
git diff D C shows lots of differences.
There should have been no merge conflicts.
The merge was probably performed using SourceTree.
Is there a simple explanation for how such a thing might have happened? We'd like to avoid doing it again.
Thanks!
git atlassian-sourcetree
git atlassian-sourcetree
asked Nov 14 '18 at 0:50
Joshua R.Joshua R.
1,77411116
asked Nov 14 '18 at 0:50
Joshua R.Joshua R.
1,77411116
asked Nov 14 '18 at 0:50
Joshua R.Joshua R.
1,77411116
asked Nov 14 '18 at 0:50
Joshua R.Joshua R.
1,77411116
asked Nov 14 '18 at 0:50
Joshua R.Joshua R.
1,77411116
1,77411116
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The only way to get that in Git is by explicitly asking for it. There are various ways to do it, there's various workflows for which that's a legitimate merge result, but it's not the default and you can't just fatfinger the request, you have to ask for it. One way is a -s ours merge. Another is to do a git reset HEAD before committing the merge. If SourceTree makes it easy to fatfinger that, that's on them.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 1:29
jthilljthill
27.9k34578
This is a helpful response. We still don't know conclusively what happened, but users thrashing in SourceTree sounds totally plausible. Thanks!
– Joshua R.
Jan 8 at 19:33
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53291628%2fgit-forensics-all-changes-on-dev-branch-disappeared-after-merge-into-master%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The only way to get that in Git is by explicitly asking for it. There are various ways to do it, there's various workflows for which that's a legitimate merge result, but it's not the default and you can't just fatfinger the request, you have to ask for it. One way is a -s ours merge. Another is to do a git reset HEAD before committing the merge. If SourceTree makes it easy to fatfinger that, that's on them.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 1:29
jthilljthill
27.9k34578
This is a helpful response. We still don't know conclusively what happened, but users thrashing in SourceTree sounds totally plausible. Thanks!
– Joshua R.
Jan 8 at 19:33
add a comment |
The only way to get that in Git is by explicitly asking for it. There are various ways to do it, there's various workflows for which that's a legitimate merge result, but it's not the default and you can't just fatfinger the request, you have to ask for it. One way is a -s ours merge. Another is to do a git reset HEAD before committing the merge. If SourceTree makes it easy to fatfinger that, that's on them.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 1:29
jthilljthill
27.9k34578
This is a helpful response. We still don't know conclusively what happened, but users thrashing in SourceTree sounds totally plausible. Thanks!
– Joshua R.
Jan 8 at 19:33
add a comment |
The only way to get that in Git is by explicitly asking for it. There are various ways to do it, there's various workflows for which that's a legitimate merge result, but it's not the default and you can't just fatfinger the request, you have to ask for it. One way is a -s ours merge. Another is to do a git reset HEAD before committing the merge. If SourceTree makes it easy to fatfinger that, that's on them.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 1:29
jthilljthill
27.9k34578
The only way to get that in Git is by explicitly asking for it. There are various ways to do it, there's various workflows for which that's a legitimate merge result, but it's not the default and you can't just fatfinger the request, you have to ask for it. One way is a -s ours merge. Another is to do a git reset HEAD before committing the merge. If SourceTree makes it easy to fatfinger that, that's on them.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 1:29
jthilljthill
27.9k34578
answered Nov 14 '18 at 1:29
jthilljthill
27.9k34578
answered Nov 14 '18 at 1:29
jthilljthill
27.9k34578
answered Nov 14 '18 at 1:29
jthilljthill
27.9k34578
27.9k34578
This is a helpful response. We still don't know conclusively what happened, but users thrashing in SourceTree sounds totally plausible. Thanks!
– Joshua R.
Jan 8 at 19:33
add a comment |
This is a helpful response. We still don't know conclusively what happened, but users thrashing in SourceTree sounds totally plausible. Thanks!
– Joshua R.
Jan 8 at 19:33
This is a helpful response. We still don't know conclusively what happened, but users thrashing in SourceTree sounds totally plausible. Thanks!
– Joshua R.
Jan 8 at 19:33
This is a helpful response. We still don't know conclusively what happened, but users thrashing in SourceTree sounds totally plausible. Thanks!
– Joshua R.
Jan 8 at 19:33
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53291628%2fgit-forensics-all-changes-on-dev-branch-disappeared-after-merge-into-master%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
