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
TL;DR answer
(It seems that pull fetches all branches from all remotes, but I always fetch first just to be sure.)
Run the first command only if there are remote branches on the server that aren't tracked by your local branches.
Complete answer
You can fetch all branches from all remotes like this:
It's basically a power move.
fetch
updates local copies of remote branches so this is always safe for your local branches BUT:fetch
will not update local branches (which track remote branches); if you want to update your local branches you still need to pull every branch.fetch
will not create local branches (which track remote branches), you have to do this manually. If you want to list all remote branches:git branch -a
To update local branches which track remote branches:
However, this can be still insufficient. It will work only for your local branches which track remote branches. To track all remote branches execute this oneliner BEFORE
git pull --all
:P.S. AFAIK
git fetch --all
andgit remote update
are equivalent.Kamil Szot's comment, which folks have found useful.