Be it because of leaked sensitive information, to get rid of some very large files that should not have been there in the first place, or just because you want a clean history (I certainly do). However, sometimes you do want to rewrite the history. If they have local changes, they have to do some work to get in sync again work which requires a bit more knowledge on how Git works to do it properly.

People cannot just pull your rewritten history as usual. People generally avoid history rewiriting, for a good reason: it will fundamentally diverge your repository from anyone who cloned or forked it. Just like above, the bad commit remains there, but it no longer affects the the current master and any future commits on top of it. Reverting a commit means to create a new commit that undoes all changes that were made in the bad commit. Instead of going through all the changes manually, you can simply tell git to revert a commit, which does not even have to be the last one. Sometimes you may want to undo a whole commit with all changes. The bad commit remains there and accessible, but this is usually not a big deal, unless the file contains sensitive information. This is the most natural way to fix an error, always safe and totally non-destructive, and how you should do it 99% of the time. Simply remove or fix the bad file in a new commit and push it to the remote repository. But you should do it rather fast before anyone fetches the bad commits, or you won't be very popular with them for a while )įirst two alternatives that will keep the history intact: Alternative: Correct the mistake in a new commit So you've just pushed your local branch to a remote branch, but then realized that one of the commits should not be there, or that there was some unacceptable typo in it. About Git HowTo: revert a commit already pushed to a remote repository May 2010

Sourcetree force push instantly returns