Git

In every development cycle, there are moments where you realize that one commit should not go into production yet. Maybe it introduces a half-finished feature, a bug, or something that needs business approval. The problem is, this commit is already merged into your main branch alongside other valuable changes. How

When working with Git, it’s common to review a series of commits between two points in history. Maybe you want to generate release notes, review code history, or export commit data for auditing. But if you’ve worked with teams, you’ll often see merge commits cluttering the history,

When working with Git in collaborative projects, it’s not uncommon for a branch on the remote (origin) to be renamed for clarity, convention, or organizational reasons. However, your local repository doesn’t automatically catch up with that change. This leaves you with an outdated local branch that can cause

When working with Git, you’ll eventually encounter a situation where your local branch and the remote branch have diverged. This happens when both you and others commit changes separately before syncing. At this point, a simple git pull isn’t enough, because Git can’t do a fast-forward merge

When working with Git in CI/CD pipelines or automated scripts, it's crucial to clone repositories efficiently and securely. You may have seen a command like this: git clone --depth=1 --single-branch --branch main https://x-access-token:[email protected]/your-org/your-repo.git This article breaks down

If you’ve ever wondered whether you should use Git branches or just work straight on the main branch, you’re not alone. It’s a common question — especially among solo developers or small teams trying to keep things simple. The short answer? It depends on your workflow, your team