TL;DR: Master is unchanged in the process of this rebase example, only the branch is changed.
In the given example, the branch is being based off a different commit than it originally was. In other words, the commits made on master since the branch was originally made will now appear at the start of the branch's history. You will often see this referred to as "replaying commits". The branch commits will have a different hash (you can see this in the example if you look closely), but will have the same contents in them. git rebase can also be used to "replay" the commits from the dev branch back onto master, but I'm not as familiar with that work flow, so I won't try to give advice on it.
Thanks so much for the awesome reply! Now I understand the flaw of doing this and a better understanding between 'rebase' and 'merge'. I really appreciate it!
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
TL;DR: Master is unchanged in the process of this rebase example, only the branch is changed.
In the given example, the branch is being based off a different commit than it originally was. In other words, the commits made on master since the branch was originally made will now appear at the start of the branch's history. You will often see this referred to as "replaying commits". The branch commits will have a different hash (you can see this in the example if you look closely), but will have the same contents in them.
git rebasecan also be used to "replay" the commits from the dev branch back onto master, but I'm not as familiar with that work flow, so I won't try to give advice on it.Thanks so much for the awesome reply! Now I understand the flaw of doing this and a better understanding between 'rebase' and 'merge'. I really appreciate it!