It's not the same without you

Join the community to find out what other Atlassian users are discussing, debating and creating.

Atlassian Community Hero Image Collage

Why do merges of pull requests not display anything in the graph?

Why do merges of pull requests not display a line in the graph, showing the merge? We know what branch is being merged in, it's right in the pull request, but yet the graph shows no line connecting them back into one line??? It just looks like all branches never got merged in, but they did? Who decided this was the way to display the graph?



1 answer

0 votes

Hi can you check you have the 'Show Remote Branches' option checked at the top of the log view?

Is it possible that the PR has been merged but you are not seeing the remote state and you haven't fetched since the PR merge?

It is checked.

How can I have not fetched from the remote if I can see the commit where the branch is being merged?

Apologies, i confused 2 issues.

Can you let me know whether changing the Current/All branches option and the Show Remote Branches option changes the view?

I don't understand your question, it was mis-written and confusingly worded. 

If you are asking whether toggling Current/All Branches and unchecking and rechecking Show Remote Branches does anything to resolve this problem: the answer is no.

Sorry for any confusion, thanks for the answer.

Can I ask what the graph looks like when you run

>git log --oneline --abbrev-commit --all --graph

Do the lines join in that?

Hey, I know this is an old question, but I'm experiencing this problem and I'd like to give some input. I'm not a Git expert so I'm going to need some help piecing this together.

In SourceTree, when we merge a branch locally the merge itself has its own commit. In the branching graph, each commit is a node connected by colored lines. So for two lines to merge together they need to merge at a commit, and this would be the merge commit, conventionally with a description like "Merge branch A into B."

Pull requests in GitHub seem to be handled kind of differently. When a pull request is "merged" there's no merge commit. It seems to just use the commits in the pull request to make new commits on the master branch. I'm not exactly sure what's going on, but this seems to produce unexpected behavior.

I ran the command ">git log --oneline --abbrev-commit --all --graph" and found the commit I was looking for in the output, and it's the same as SourceTree's graph. But I noticed something about the graph that I had missed before. There are two copies of my commit: one in its own branch that's never been merged, and one in the master branch which must be where the pull request was "merged." What's going on here? Why is the PR showing up as a direct commit to the master branch rather than a branch that's been merged? Is this expected behavior, or is someone merging pull requests incorrectly?

Like 1 person likes this

Suggest an answer

Log in or Sign up to answer
This widget could not be displayed.
This widget could not be displayed.
Community showcase
Posted Jan 17, 2019 in Sourcetree

[dev team] Sourcetree for Windows 2019 Preview - Dark Theme

Hi folks, While the full post is over on our blog I'd like to share the dark theme we've got planned for 2019 here directly as well to keep the discussion going.  The ...

1,551 views 13 14
Join discussion

Atlassian User Groups

Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!

Find a group

Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!

Find my local user group

Unfortunately there are no AUG chapters near you at the moment.

Start an AUG

You're one step closer to meeting fellow Atlassian users at your local meet up. Learn more about AUGs

Groups near you