What is a common challenge when transitioning a legacy codebase to Git?
- Handling large files
- Maintaining commit history
- Limited branching and merging capabilities
- Lack of user interface
Transitioning a legacy codebase to Git can be challenging due to the need to maintain commit history, ensuring a smooth transition without losing valuable information about the codebase's evolution.
What is the best practice for maintaining a clean Git history when merging branches?
- Regularly force-push to keep the history linear and easy to follow.
- Merge frequently to avoid conflicts and maintain a linear history.
- Rebase branches before merging to create a clean, linear history.
- Always create a new branch for each feature and never merge branches.
Rebasing is a technique to maintain a clean and linear Git history by incorporating changes from one branch into another. It helps avoid unnecessary merge commits and keeps the commit history more readable and logical.
How does Git's branching model facilitate better integration with code quality tools compared to other VCS?
- Enables parallel development with feature branches, allowing isolated code quality checks.
- Discourages the use of branches, minimizing interference with code quality tools.
- Prioritizes a linear development workflow, hindering code quality integration.
- Only integrates with specific code quality tools, limiting flexibility.
Git Branching Model and Code Quality Integration
A new branch in Git can be created and switched to using the git _______ command.
- branch
- checkout
- merge
- commit
The 'git checkout' command is used to switch branches in Git. This command is also used to create a new branch and switch to it. The correct option is 'checkout'.
What are the implications of squashing commits when merging a feature branch into the main branch?
- Preserve individual commit history
- Combine multiple commits into one
- Increase repository size
- Create conflicts in the main branch
Squashing commits combines multiple commits into a single commit, providing a cleaner history. It helps maintain a more organized and readable history but can result in the loss of individual commit details.
The command git _______ is used to integrate changes from one branch to another.
- Checkout
- Merge
- Pull
- Push
The command git **merge** is used to integrate changes from one branch to another in Git. It combines changes from different branches.
A developer finds that some commits are missing from the Git history, suggesting a corrupted repository. What steps should they take to investigate and restore the repository?
- Use the git fsck command to check for object integrity and attempt to recover the missing commits.
- Clone a fresh copy of the repository from a backup.
- Delete the local repository and create a new one to start fresh.
- Run git blame on affected files to identify the missing commits and manually reapply them.
The git fsck command is used to check the integrity of objects in the Git database. Running this command can help identify and potentially recover missing commits. Restoring from a backup or recreating the repository may lead to data loss, making git fsck a more appropriate first step.
What is the primary purpose of a version control system?
- A version control system is used for code collaboration.
- A version control system is used for debugging code.
- A version control system is used for file backup.
- A version control system is used for tracking changes in code.
The primary purpose of a version control system, like Git, is to track changes in code and manage different versions of files. It allows developers to collaborate, review changes, and revert to previous versions if needed.
Your team decides to enforce a linear history on the main branch. Which Git feature would be most appropriate to achieve this?
- merge
- rebase
- squash
- cherry-pick
The correct option is rebase. Rebasing helps create a linear history by incorporating changes from one branch onto another, eliminating unnecessary merge commits. This promotes a cleaner and more straightforward history, especially on the main branch.
What are the implications of force pushing (git push --force) in a collaborative Git repository?
- It's a standard push operation
- It overwrites the remote branch with local changes
- It creates a new branch remotely
- It prompts collaborators for approval
Force pushing overwrites the remote branch with local changes, potentially causing conflicts for collaborators. It should be used cautiously to avoid disrupting others' work.