Update branch with rebase repository setting

[avaly]

The new update branch feature is great!

But for teams which are only using the rebase functionality, it's not optimal to always have to pick the rebase option from a drop down menu.

It would be ideal if there were a repository level setting to configure which option is the default for that button.

[michaelbeaumont]

It'd be great for it to even just remember the last used option like the "Merge PR" option does.

[filipesperandio]

💯 even better then having a default.

[burz]

The issue I am facing is that even when merge commits are disabled in the repository settings, the update button still defaults to merge commits.

Please change the "update branch" button to either follow the same rules as the overall PR options, or allow it to be configured separately to disallow certain options.

(The "update branch" is a great feature, btw!)

[rmacklin]

I would vote for separate configuration as this would allow for the button to be used even when the project desires "semi-linear" history (where merge commits are allowed to be created when merging a fully-rebased branch into the mainline).

[rmacklin]

This was also requested in a comment on another feature request: #3245 (comment) and that comment currently has more upvotes than this post (so the upvotes here are under-represented)

[ManuelRauber]

That would be an awesome feature, if we choose the strategy to update the branch, just like we do with PR merging.

[rathpc]

Hey @scotttesler, any chance we can get some traction on this please? 🙏

[dimisjim]

doubtful, with all the layoffs circling around.

[marcusramberg]

@krisnova ^^ This is the issue I was talking about on your Twitch stream. 😸

[ferologics]

ditto

[valentin-krasontovitsch]

there's no way for a user (non github employee) to contribute to the github codebase and make this happen, is there?

[deefactorial]

Is there any update from the GitHub team regarding this feature request?

[dcornewell]

We were just discussing how update with rebase is preferred but most of my dev team just clicks the button. I'd like it at least to be configurable to be the first option to save a click.

[GANTR0N]

This would be a major help for how our testing system is integrated, this is a small change that would be a big QoL help.

[williamglasse]

Our team would really benefit from this too! Have had a couple of team members accidentally merge, and then have had to undo that change. Would really like to be able to select a default other than "merge"

[mbirchdk]

Would love this feature! Sucks when teammembers accidentally presses the merge button

Personally I want merge-commits from feature-branches on to the main-branch, but I dont want to allow merge-commits for updating other branches, this should be done using rebase. I tried enforcing it with the branch-protection rule "require linear history" on all other branches than main. But unfortunately it uses the entire commit-history, and not just the commits on the specific branch

[manemarron]

Our team would love this feature as well. We would like the feature branches to be updated using rebase to avoid having so many merge-commits. Our master, staging, and develop branches would be updated using merges obviousy, but for feature branches or fix branches, this feature would help us have a cleaner commit history in a simpler way.

[jeffhole]

To add to the "disable" conversation, the "Update branch" button could have a section in Settings under General just like the Pull Request button:

• allow merge commits
• allow squash commits
• allow rebasing commits

Update Branch button options:

• allow update with merge commit
• allow update with rebase

There should definitely be an option for selecting the default as well, for both buttons!

[mecampbellsoup]

What's the status of this, is GitHub even aware?

[sandstrom]

Don't know, but if you are a paying customer you can submit a feature request asking about it.

[repsejnworb]

Been awaiting this (and a "Update branch with rebase and merge into main"-button) for so many years.

Please Github

[WaleedAshraf]

Response from GitHub support as of today,

Currently, Update with rebase as the default when updating a branch from the main branch option isn't available.

We have however heard this request from other customers as well. I have gone ahead and added your voice to our internal issue tracking this feature. I can not say if or when this feature might be added, but we'll make sure to document it in the GitHub Changelog or the GitHub Blog if it becomes available.

[0cjs]

Here's another vote to add this.

[benjamin-brabant]

Here's another vote to add this.

[sandstrom]

If you are paying for Github, write their support and ask for it. Just writing it here will not make much of a difference.

[NathanBraslavski]

Count my vote as well, I will also write support.

[codella]

This would be very nice to have 🙏🏽 please, make it happen!

[repsejnworb]

I feel like over the years we've added thousands upon thousands of votes for this feature, but for the sake of it - here is my vote added (again).

[pieeri]

Adding our voice here as a very nice way and feature for enforcing such a development process at an organisation level!

[ankon]

Our workflow is to "rebase" branches in PRs, so that the history in the branch itself stays quite linear, and then create explicit merge commits (without squashing) when the PR branch gets merged into the mainline.

It would be very helpful for us indeed if we could org-wide require the "Update branch" button to always use "rebase" as strategy.

[rathpc]

It has been nearly 3 years since this issue was first raised, is there any movement on this at all?

[repsejnworb]

You should see the original original original xD

I've followed isaacs/github#88 (comment) since it's inception, which was the first ask for something similar.

[ptrkstr]

Would love this feature as well 🥹

[gingters]

We would need this too. We want to explicitly FORBID updating the branch with a merge, ONLY rebase should be allowed.

[robertIsaac]

FYI adding a rule that require liner history, automatically disable the merge button and rebase become the only available option

[pmcgaley]

I tried this exact approach in the past and it looked like it was going to work, but hitting the button gave me this:

I just tried again and now it gives me this:

I assume it's seeing that main has merge commits (the whole point of "semi-linear" history) and refusing to rebase the branch onto it. (I have main explicitly excluded from the rule)

[robertIsaac]

yeah well you need to clean the main branch first from merge commits
I used it in a new repo and it was fine but for old repos it's tricky

what you can do is to automated the rebase on first commit and to use --ours for example, this will remove all merge commits but the result won't match 100%
next use a tool to compare the main with remote/main (I used webstorm) and manually get all the changes in a new commit and force push to main
this will cause a big mess in the repo, if you decided to go this way ask all team members to delete and clone again the repo

[pmcgaley]

Sorry, crossed wires. This sounds like it would work if you're happy using purely linear history on main, but we (and some others on this thread) intentionally use semi-linear history - i.e. a merge commit for each PR, but PRs are always rebased before merging. So your suggestion wouldn't work for us, but may help others, thanks

[robertIsaac]

yes unfortunately it needs to be 100% liner for it to work
it's really great for new repos, but for old ones I have no idea what to do