235
70
Can I do the following in a simpler way?
git checkout origin/master
git branch -D master
git branch master
git checkout master
235
70
Can I do the following in a simpler way?
git checkout origin/master
git branch -D master
git branch master
git checkout master
343
As KindDragon's answer mentions, you can recreate master
directly at origin/master
with:
git checkout -B master origin/master
The git checkout
man page mentions:
If -B
is given, <new_branch>
is created if it doesn’t exist; otherwise, it is reset. This is the transactional equivalent of
$ git branch -f <branch> [<start point>]
$ git checkout <branch>
Since Git 2.23+ (August 2019), since git checkout
is too confusing, the new (still experimental) command is git switch
:
git switch -C master origin/master
That is:
-C <new-branch> --force-create <new-branch>
Similar to
--create
except that if<new-branch>
already exists, it will be reset to<start-point>
.
This is a convenient shortcut for:$ git branch -f <new-branch> $ git switch <new-branch>
Originally suggested:
Something like:
$ git checkout master
# remember where the master was referencing to
$ git branch previous_master
# Reset master back to origin/master
$ git reset --hard origin/master
with step 2 being optional.
1You can do that with one line. – Robert Siemer – 2016-01-08T12:17:01.597
102
Git supports this command:
git checkout -B master origin/master
Check out the origin/master
branch and then reset master
branch there.
4The only true answer. – Robert Siemer – 2016-01-08T12:14:04.017
3save four keystrokes -- you don't need the quotes. Just: git checkout -B master origin/master – zumalifeguard – 2016-03-24T02:29:39.120
let's says I commited 2 things, the first one is a merge with branch and the second one is regular. What happens to the merge if I go back to the origin/master? – utdev – 2016-12-22T15:05:34.063
1don't you have to git fetch origin master
before to be sure origin/master
is updated? – pedrozath – 2017-03-29T16:22:52.757
Yes, of course with all solutions you should do git fetch
first – KindDragon – 2017-03-29T17:03:48.710
won't this lose commits on the local master as you reset it to origin/master? usually people get to this point when they committed stuff directly onto master by mistake, and wish they had branched previously. – Motti Shneor – 2019-06-12T15:47:11.347
@MottiShneor: Yes, it will lose all new activity on local master
. Which is what the question asks for. – Ben Voigt – 2019-12-18T15:34:42.050
30
I think even VonC's answer has complexity compared to this option:
git update-ref refs/heads/master origin/master
git reset --hard master
git automatically logs every value of a ref (through the reflog). So after you run that command, then master@{1}
refers to the previous value of master.
VonC's answer is correct, but it wastes time checkout out the old value of master into the filesystem.
If you care about orphaned objects in the repo, then you can run git gc
This works even if you're not on master (like a detached HEAD state that is actually pointing to the tip origin/master). Then, you can checkout master without having to flip old files through the repo. Great! – Andrew Mao – 2014-07-25T19:26:33.447
1Sounds an interesting alternative. +1 – VonC – 2013-03-19T12:37:46.590
I still get Already on 'master'
– yourfriendzak – 2013-08-21T22:56:00.373
@yourfriendzak, I forgot about taking into account that you might already have master checked out before updating master. I have updated the answer to be one that should work even in that case as well. – Alexander Bird – 2013-08-22T19:02:11.640
22
If you are already on master
you can do the following:
git reset --hard origin/master
It will point the local master
branch to the remote origin/master
and discard any modifications in the working dir.
And will delete files! If you have created/edited files, and have run a "git add" on them, this command will delete them. Be warned. – Cheeso – 2015-11-11T15:30:57.967
Is this approach better than git checkout -B master origin/master
? – Jim Aho – 2019-06-02T18:02:07.153
Sometimes, this can be done without touching the working tree: http://stackoverflow.com/a/12343727/586086
– Andrew Mao – 2014-09-08T19:08:06.2106Please update your accepted answer: @KindDragon’s answer is correcter and shorter. – Robert Siemer – 2016-01-08T12:17:36.260