Merge branches without checking out branch

Question

I have 3 branches.

     master [ Live Server]
      \
       stage [ Stage Server Where we test changes; merge commits ]
        \ 
         Dev [ Local Machine ]

I would like to downstream the changes to. Each of these branches are set to tracking each other.

Normally, to downstream the changes i do this:

git checkout stage && git merge master

Then i checkout dev and i do the same

git checkout dev && git merge stage

Then push them all: git push origin --all

Is there a way to downstream those changes without checking out into each branch?

I maybe using the wrong terminology. I'm not totally sure if i'm using upstream/downstream terminology correctly.

Your usage of downstream isn't incompatible with what I understand about "upstream/downstream": http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2739376/definition-of-downstream-and-upstream/2749166#2749166 — VonC, Jul 21 '11 at 14:45
if you git merge master, master branch would not get your stage code, but only your stage branch get your master code... — TheOneTeam, Jul 21 '11 at 14:53
@Chris: It's a statement. `git checkout stage && git merge master` will merge changes from master into stage. It won't add any commits to master. I believe this is your intention, but your first reply to @Kit seems to indicate otherwise. — Tom Anderson, Jul 21 '11 at 15:35
@Tom Anderson Yes it is. I meant the other way around. dev would get the commits from master. — chrisjlee, Jul 21 '11 at 15:45
yes. what i am pointing is exactly what @Chris say, i just wonder why you merge your master code to dev. branch. Dev. branch is supposed to have to newest commit in your whole repository. — TheOneTeam, Jul 21 '11 at 16:27
@kit ho i do that but the changes need to be on the staging server too. — chrisjlee, Jul 21 '11 at 20:42
possible duplicate of [Merging Branches Without Checkout](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4156957/merging-branches-without-checkout) — krlmlr, Dec 04 '13 at 00:42
Possible duplicate of [Git checkout-and-merge without touching working tree](http://stackoverflow.com/q/1402993/456814). — , May 29 '14 at 19:31
Possible duplicate of [Update/pull a local Git branch without checking it out?](http://stackoverflow.com/q/3216360/456814). — , May 29 '14 at 19:31
Possible duplicate of [Merging without changing the working directory](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3408532/merging-without-changing-the-working-directory). — , May 29 '14 at 19:32
Possible duplicate of [Merging Branches Without Checkout](http://stackoverflow.com/q/4156957/456814). — , May 29 '14 at 19:32
Re-added: Possible duplicate of [Merge, update, and pull Git branches without using checkouts](http://stackoverflow.com/q/3216360/367456) — hakre, Nov 24 '14 at 11:10

score 73 · Accepted Answer · edited Aug 30 '17 at 07:48

73

You can indeed "merge" a branch B into branch A without having to check out branch A, but only if it's a fast-forward merge.

You can use a refspec with fetch to do the "merge". If merging branch B into branch A using git merge would result in a fast-forward merge, then you can do the following without having to checkout A:

git fetch <remote> B:A

The Documentation

The above matches the refspec format

git fetch <remote> <source>:<destination>

From the documentation for git fetch (emphasis mine):

The remote ref that matches <src> is fetched, and if <dst> is not empty string, the local ref that matches it is fast-forwarded using <src>.

12

(For the lazy who don't want to dig through the other answers): You can also use a . in place of the the remote for operation on local branches. – David Sep 08 '15 at 15:28
This is such a good find. I've haphazardly passed this in the documentation a handful of times and never picked up on this. – Carrie Kendall Dec 03 '15 at 01:07
@CarrieKendall it's really easy to miss. It's been a long while, but I think that the only reason I discovered this was because my bash auto-completed the refspec one day, and being curious, I decided to hit enter and see what would happen... – Dec 03 '15 at 03:08
5

Here's a practical example: `git fetch . foo:master` this will do a fast-forward merge of foo into master no matter what branch you are on. The `.` refers to the local repository. – Jason Axelson Jul 13 '16 at 08:03

score 17 · Answer 2 · answered May 29 '14 at 17:13

17

Enter git-forward-merge:

Without needing to checkout destination, git-forward-merge <source> <destination> merges source into destination branch.

https://github.com/schuyler1d/git-forward-merge

answered May 29 '14 at 17:13

lkraider

4,111
3
28
31

@chrisjlee please accept this answer since it's hidden under accepted answer which also has a bounty and it's really easy to miss it. `git-forward-merge` also states in the README that it uses the now-accepted approach if possible. – Jiří Brabec Oct 13 '20 at 14:57

Karl Bielefeldt · Answer 3 · 2016-02-19T00:28:35.863

6

You can't merge into a branch in the general case without having it checked out. There's a good reason for this, however. You need the proper working tree in order to denote and resolve merge conflicts.

edited Feb 19 '16 at 00:28

answered Jul 21 '11 at 15:39

Karl Bielefeldt

47,314
10
60
94

This isn't a new comment, just editing out the link to my answer because, in hindsight, linking to my own answer like that was distasteful. Edited comment: This isn't entirely correct. If the merge would result in a fast-forward merge, then there will be no conflicts, and thus it's not necessary to have a working copy, and thus it's possible to merge without having to have the destination branch checked-out. – Sep 08 '15 at 16:43

Merge branches without checking out branch

3 Answers3

The Documentation

See Also

Linked