You can do either of those. The difference between the two is how the history graph will look afterwards. (If you want to see, create a copy of your clone folder and do the rebase in one of the copies, the merge in the other.)
(On your screenshot, it seems that the feature/deployScripts branch is not checked out, first you need to check that branch out.)
Can you explain more about the history. I went with merge and when I look at branch's history it's the same as the branch I merged from so it's clean but shows an accurate history. I should mentioned that I squashed my commits first. So all in all I'm happy with the result. Any downsides to doing it this way? If it rebased instead how would the history be different?
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
First of all, since you only had one unique commit in your branch, the squash did not really do anything (it would combine your commits into one). The rebase/merge story is a rather long one. It is quite well explained here: http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Branching-Rebasing
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
I squashed before I sent the screenshot. :-) Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.