git-clean - Remove untracked files from the working tree
Synopsis
git clean [-d] [-f] [-i] [-n] [-q] [-e <pattern>] [-x | -X] [--] <path>…
Description
Cleans the working tree by recursively removing files that are not under version control, starting from the current directory.
Normally, only files unknown to Git are removed, but if the -x
option is specified, ignored files are also removed. This can, for example, be useful to remove all build products.
If any optional <path>...
arguments are given, only those paths are affected.
Step 1 is to show what will be deleted by using the -n
option:
# Print out the list of files and directories which will be removed (dry run)
git clean -n -d
Clean Step - beware: this will delete files:
# Delete the files from the repository
git clean -f
- To remove directories, run
git clean -f -d
or git clean -fd
- To remove ignored files, run
git clean -f -X
or git clean -fX
- To remove ignored and non-ignored files, run
git clean -f -x
or git clean -fx
Note the case difference on the X
for the two latter commands.
If clean.requireForce
is set to "true" (the default) in your configuration, one needs to specify -f
otherwise nothing will actually happen.
Again see the git-clean
docs for more information.
Options
-f
, --force
If the Git configuration variable clean.requireForce is not set to
false, git clean will refuse to run unless given -f
, -n
or -i
.
-x
Don’t use the standard ignore rules read from .gitignore (per
directory) and $GIT_DIR/info/exclude
, but do still use the ignore
rules given with -e
options. This allows removing all untracked files,
including build products. This can be used (possibly in conjunction
with git reset) to create a pristine working directory to test a clean
build.
-X
Remove only files ignored by Git. This may be useful to rebuild
everything from scratch, but keep manually created files.
-n
, --dry-run
Don’t actually remove anything, just show what would be done.
-d
Remove untracked directories in addition to untracked files. If an
untracked directory is managed by a different Git repository, it is
not removed by default. Use -f
option twice if you really want to
remove such a directory.
The easiest way would be to find the head commit of the branch as it was immediately before the rebase started in the reflog...
git reflog
and to reset the current branch to it (with the usual caveats about being absolutely sure before reseting with the --hard
option).
Suppose the old commit was HEAD@{2}
in the ref log:
git reset --hard HEAD@{2}
In Windows, you may need to quote the reference:
git reset --hard "HEAD@{2}"
You can check the history of the candidate old head by just doing a git log HEAD@{2}
(Windows: git log "HEAD@{2}"
).
If you've not disabled per branch reflogs you should be able to simply do git reflog branchname@{1}
as a rebase detaches the branch head before reattaching to the final head. I would double check this, though as I haven't verified this recently.
Per default, all reflogs are activated for non-bare repositories:
[core]
logAllRefUpdates = true
Best Answer
I would like to provide a different perspective on what "git pull --rebase" actually means, because it seems to get lost sometimes.
If you've ever used Subversion (or CVS), you may be used to the behavior of "svn update". If you have changes to commit and the commit fails because changes have been made upstream, you "svn update". Subversion proceeds by merging upstream changes with yours, potentially resulting in conflicts.
What Subversion just did, was essentially "pull --rebase". The act of re-formulating your local changes to be relative to the newer version is the "rebasing" part of it. If you had done "svn diff" prior to the failed commit attempt, and compare the resulting diff with the output of "svn diff" afterwards, the difference between the two diffs is what the rebasing operation did.
The major difference between Git and Subversion in this case is that in Subversion, "your" changes only exist as non-committed changes in your working copy, while in Git you have actual commits locally. In other words, in Git you have forked the history; your history and the upstream history has diverged, but you have a common ancestor.
In my opinion, in the normal case of having your local branch simply reflecting the upstream branch and doing continuous development on it, the right thing to do is always "--rebase", because that is what you are semantically actually doing. You and others are hacking away at the intended linear history of a branch. The fact that someone else happened to push slightly prior to your attempted push is irrelevant, and it seems counter-productive for each such accident of timing to result in merges in the history.
If you actually feel the need for something to be a branch for whatever reason, that is a different concern in my opinion. But unless you have a specific and active desire to represent your changes in the form of a merge, the default behavior should, in my opinion, be "git pull --rebase".
Please consider other people that need to observe and understand the history of your project. Do you want the history littered with hundreds of merges all over the place, or do you want only the select few merges that represent real merges of intentional divergent development efforts?