I'd like to move the last several commits I've committed to master to a new branch and take master back to before those commits were made. Unfortunately, my Git-fu is not strong enough yet, any help?

I.e. How can I go from this

master A - B - C - D - E

to this?

newbranch     C - D - E
             /
master A - B 

11 Answers 11

up vote 4830 down vote accepted
+50

Moving to a new branch

WARNING: This method works because you are creating a new branch with the first command: git branch newbranch. If you want to move commits to an existing branch you need to merge your changes into the existing branch before executing git reset --hard HEAD~3 (see Moving to an existing branch below). If you don't merge your changes first, they will be lost.

Unless there are other circumstances involved, this can be easily done by branching and rolling back.

# Note: Any changes not committed will be lost.
git branch newbranch      # Create a new branch, saving the desired commits
git reset --hard HEAD~3   # Move master back by 3 commits (GONE from master)
git checkout newbranch    # Go to the new branch that still has the desired commits

But do make sure how many commits to go back. Alternatively, you can instead of HEAD~3, simply provide the hash of the commit (or the reference like origin/master) you want to "revert back to" on the master (/current) branch, e.g:

git reset --hard a1b2c3d4

*1 You will only be "losing" commits from the master branch, but don't worry, you'll have those commits in newbranch!

WARNING: With Git version 2.0 and later, if you later git rebase the new branch upon the original (master) branch, you may need an explicit --no-fork-point option during the rebase to avoid losing the carried-over commits. Having branch.autosetuprebase always set makes this more likely. See John Mellor's answer for details.

Moving to an existing branch

If you want to move your commits to an existing branch, it will look like this:

git checkout existingbranch
git merge master
git checkout master
git reset --hard HEAD~3 # Go back 3 commits. You *will* lose uncommitted work.
git checkout existingbranch
  • 202
    And in particular, don't try to go back further than the point where you last pushed commits to another repository from which somebody else might have pulled. – Greg Hewgill Oct 27 '09 at 3:23
  • 88
    Wondering if you can explain WHY this works. To me you're creating a new branch, removing 3 commits from the old branch you are still on, and then checking out the branch you made. So how do the commits you removed magically show up in the new branch? – Jonathan Dumaine Aug 3 '10 at 18:28
  • 119
    @Jonathan Dumaine: Because I created the new branch before removing the commits from the old branch. They're still there in the new branch. – sykora Aug 4 '10 at 8:28
  • 75
    branches in git are just markers which point to commits in history, there is nothing being cloned, created or deleted (except the markers) – knittl Aug 16 '10 at 11:32
  • 175
    Also note: Don't do this with uncommitted changes in your working copy! This just bit me! :( – Adam Tuttle Oct 25 '11 at 3:59

For those wondering why it works (as I was at first):

You want to go back to C, and move D and E to the new branch. Here's what it looks like at first:

A-B-C-D-E (HEAD)
        ↑
      master

After git branch newBranch:

    newBranch
        ↓
A-B-C-D-E (HEAD)
        ↑
      master

After git reset --hard HEAD~2:

    newBranch
        ↓
A-B-C-D-E (HEAD)
    ↑
  master

Since a branch is just a pointer, master pointed to the last commit. When you made newBranch, you simply made a new pointer to the last commit. Then using git reset you moved the master pointer back two commits. But since you didn't move newBranch, it still points to the commit it originally did.

  • 34
    You do need --hard, because otherwise git leaves the changes from the reset commits in the working directory (or at least did for me). – Andrew Aug 22 '11 at 22:05
  • 32
    I also needed to do a git push origin master --force for the change to show up in main repository. – Dženan Nov 26 '14 at 19:20
  • 7
    This answer causes commits to be lost: next time you git rebase, the 3 commits will be silently discarded from newbranch. See my answer for details and safer alternatives. – John Mellor Apr 6 '16 at 22:47
  • 6
    @John, that's nonsense. Rebasing without knowing what you're doing causes commits to be lost. If you lost commits, I'm sorry for you, but this answer didn't lose your commits. Note that origin/master doesn't appear in the above diagram. If you pushed to origin/master and then made the changes above, sure, things would go funny. But that's a "Doctor, it hurts when I do this" kind of problem. And it's out of scope for what the original question asked. I suggest you write your own question to explore your scenario instead of hijacking this one. – Ryan Lundy Apr 7 '16 at 3:20
  • 1
    @John, in your answer, you said "Don't do this! git branch -t newbranch". Go back and read the answers again. Nobody suggested doing that. – Ryan Lundy Apr 7 '16 at 15:02

In General...

The method exposed by sykora is the best option in this case. But sometimes is not the easiest and it's not a general method. For a general method use git cherry-pick:

To achieve what OP wants, its a 2-step process:

Step 1 - Note which commits from master you want on a newbranch

Execute

git checkout master
git log

Note the hashes of (say 3) commits you want on newbranch. Here I shall use:
C commit: 9aa1233
D commit: 453ac3d
E commit: 612ecb3

Note: You can use the first seven characters or the whole commit hash

Step 2 - Put them on the newbranch

git checkout newbranch
git cherry-pick 612ecb3
git cherry-pick 453ac3d
git cherry-pick 9aa1233

OR (on Git 1.7.2+, use ranges)

git checkout newbranch
git cherry-pick 612ecb3~1..9aa1233

git cherry-pick applies those three commits to newbranch.

  • 12
    Wasn't the OP trying to move from master to newbranch? If you cherry-pick whilst on master, you would be adding to the master branch -- adding commits that it already had, in fact. And it doesn't move back either branch head to B. Or is there something subtle and cool I'm not getting? – RaveTheTadpole Jul 6 '12 at 2:48
  • 6
    This works very well if you accidentally commit the wrong, non-master branch, when you should have created a new feature branch. – julianc Feb 27 '14 at 16:47
  • 4
    +1 for a useful approach in some situations. This is good if you only want to pull your own commits (which are interspersed with others) into a new branch. – Tyler V. Oct 1 '14 at 17:11
  • 6
    It's better answer. This way you can move commits to any branch. – skywinder Nov 5 '14 at 8:32
  • 7
    Is the order of cherry picking important? – kon psych Apr 23 '15 at 22:04

Yet another way to do this, using just 2 commands. Also keeps your current working tree intact.

git checkout -b newbranch # switch to a new branch
git branch -f master HEAD~3 # make master point to some older commit

Old version - before I learned about git branch -f

git checkout -b newbranch # switch to a new branch
git push . +HEAD~3:master # make master point to some older commit 

Being able to push to . is a nice trick to know.

  • 1
    Current directory. I guess this would work only if you are in a top directory. – aragaer Mar 28 '14 at 5:35
  • 1
    The local push is grin-inducing, but on reflection, how is it different to git branch -f here? – jthill Aug 5 '14 at 0:15
  • 2
    @GerardSexton . is current director. git can push to REMOTES or GIT URLs. path to local directory is supported Git URLs syntax. See the GIT URLS section in git help clone. – weakish Nov 25 '14 at 10:24
  • 23
    I don't know why this is not rated higher. Dead simple, and without the small but potential danger of git reset --hard. – Godsmith Feb 6 '15 at 14:56
  • 4
    @Godsmith My guess is people prefer three simple commands to two slightly more obscure commands. Also, top voted answers get more upvotes by nature of being displayed first. – JS_Riddler Oct 22 '15 at 15:43

Most previous answers are dangerously wrong!

Do NOT do this:

git branch -t newbranch
git reset --hard HEAD~3
git checkout newbranch

As the next time you run git rebase (or git pull --rebase) those 3 commits would be silently discarded from newbranch! (see explanation below)

Instead do this:

git reset --keep HEAD~3
git checkout -t -b newbranch
git cherry-pick ..HEAD@{2}
  • First it discards the 3 most recent commits (--keep is like --hard, but safer, as fails rather than throw away uncommitted changes).
  • Then it forks off newbranch.
  • Then it cherry-picks those 3 commits back onto newbranch. Since they're no longer referenced by a branch, it does that by using git's reflog: HEAD@{2} is the commit that HEAD used to refer to 2 operations ago, i.e. before we 1. checked out newbranch and 2. used git reset to discard the 3 commits.

Warning: the reflog is enabled by default, but if you've manually disabled it (e.g. by using a "bare" git repository), you won't be able to get the 3 commits back after running git reset --keep HEAD~3.

An alternative that doesn't rely on the reflog is:

# newbranch will omit the 3 most recent commits.
git checkout -b newbranch HEAD~3
git branch --set-upstream-to=oldbranch
# Cherry-picks the extra commits from oldbranch.
git cherry-pick ..oldbranch
# Discards the 3 most recent commits from oldbranch.
git branch --force oldbranch oldbranch~3

(if you prefer you can write @{-1} - the previously checked out branch - instead of oldbranch).


Technical explanation

Why would git rebase discard the 3 commits after the first example? It's because git rebase with no arguments enables the --fork-point option by default, which uses the local reflog to try to be robust against the upstream branch being force-pushed.

Suppose you branched off origin/master when it contained commits M1, M2, M3, then made three commits yourself:

M1--M2--M3  <-- origin/master
         \
          T1--T2--T3  <-- topic

but then someone rewrites history by force-pushing origin/master to remove M2:

M1--M3'  <-- origin/master
 \
  M2--M3--T1--T2--T3  <-- topic

Using your local reflog, git rebase can see that you forked from an earlier incarnation of the origin/master branch, and hence that the M2 and M3 commits are not really part of your topic branch. Hence it reasonably assumes that since M2 was removed from the upstream branch, you no longer want it in your topic branch either once the topic branch is rebased:

M1--M3'  <-- origin/master
     \
      T1'--T2'--T3'  <-- topic (rebased)

This behavior makes sense, and is generally the right thing to do when rebasing.

So the reason that the following commands fail:

git branch -t newbranch
git reset --hard HEAD~3
git checkout newbranch

is because they leave the reflog in the wrong state. Git sees newbranch as having forked off the upstream branch at a revision that includes the 3 commits, then the reset --hard rewrites the upstream's history to remove the commits, and so next time you run git rebase it discards them like any other commit that has been removed from the upstream.

But in this particular case we want those 3 commits to be considered as part of the topic branch. To achieve that, we need to fork off the upstream at the earlier revision that doesn't include the 3 commits. That's what my suggested solutions do, hence they both leave the reflog in the correct state.

For more details, see the definition of --fork-point in the git rebase and git merge-base docs.

  • 9
    This answer says "Do NOT do this!" above something that no one suggested doing. – Ryan Lundy Apr 16 '16 at 21:41
  • 2
    @Kyralessa, the -t you are referring to in git branch happens implicitly if you have git config --global branch.autosetuprebase always set. Even if you don't, I already explained to you that the same problem occurs if you setup tracking after performing these commands, as the OP likely intends to do given their question. – John Mellor Sep 16 '16 at 2:36
  • 1
    @RockLee, yes, the general the way to fix such situations is to create a fresh branch (newbranch2) from a safe starting point then cherry-pick all the commits you want to keep (from badnewbranch to newbranch2). Cherry-picking will give the commits new hashes, so you'll be able to safely rebase newbranch2 (and can now delete badnewbranch). – John Mellor Sep 16 '16 at 2:36
  • 2
    @Walf, you misunderstood: git rebase is designed to be robust against upstreams having their history rewritten. Unfortunately, the side-effects of that robustness affect everyone, even if neither they nor their upstream ever rewrite history. – John Mellor Sep 16 '16 at 2:37
  • 1
    You can also use --no-fork-point when you run git rebase. – torek Mar 24 '17 at 1:43

This doesn't "move" them in the technical sense but it has the same effect:

A--B--C  (branch-foo)
 \    ^-- I wanted them here!
  \
   D--E--F--G  (branch-bar)
      ^--^--^-- Opps wrong branch!

While on branch-bar:
$ git reset --hard D # remember the SHAs for E, F, G (or E and G for a range)

A--B--C  (branch-foo)
 \
  \
   D-(E--F--G) detached
   ^-- (branch-bar)

Switch to branch-foo
$ git cherry-pick E..G

A--B--C--E'--F'--G' (branch-foo)
 \   E--F--G detached (This can be ignored)
  \ /
   D--H--I (branch-bar)

Now you won't need to worry about the detached branch because it is basically
like they are in the trash can waiting for the day it gets garbage collected.
Eventually some time in the far future it will look like:

A--B--C--E'--F'--G'--L--M--N--... (branch-foo)
 \
  \
   D--H--I--J--K--.... (branch-bar)
  • 1
    Can't you use rebase for the same thing? – Bergi Jun 29 '15 at 17:37
  • Yes you could alternatively use rebase on the detached branch in the scenario above. – Sukima Jun 30 '15 at 1:32

To do this without rewriting history (i.e. if you've already pushed the commits):

git checkout master
git revert <commitID(s)>
git checkout -b new-branch
git cherry-pick <commitID(s)>

Both branches can then be pushed without force!

  • But then you have to deal with the revert scenario, which, depending on your circumstance, can be a lot trickier. If you revert a commit on the branch, Git will still see those commits as have taken place, so in order to undo that, you have to revert the revert. This burns quite a few people, especially when they revert a merge and try to merge the branch back, only to find that Git believes that it's already merged that branch in (which is entirely true). – Makoto Apr 7 '16 at 16:15
  • That's why I cherry-pick the commits at the end, onto a new branch. That way git sees them as new commits, which solves your issue. – teh_senaus Apr 7 '16 at 17:18
  • This is more dangerous than it first seems, since you're changing the state of the repository's history without really understanding the implications of this state. – Makoto Apr 7 '16 at 19:25
  • 3
    I don't follow your argument - the point of this answer is that you're not changing history, simply adding new commits (which effectively undo the redo the changes). These new commits can be pushed and merged as normal. – teh_senaus Apr 8 '16 at 10:33

Had just this situation:

Branch one: A B C D E F     J   L M  
                       \ (Merge)
Branch two:             G I   K     N

I performed:

git branch newbranch 
git reset --hard HEAD~8 
git checkout newbranch

I expected that commit I would be the HEAD, but commit L is it now...

To be sure to land on the right spot in the history its easier to work with the hash of the commit

git branch newbranch 
git reset --hard #########
git checkout newbranch

Much simpler solution

If:

  1. Your primary purpose is to roll back master, and
  2. You want to keep changes but don't particularly care about the individual commits, and
  3. You haven't pushed yet,

Then the following is far simpler (starting on the branch master with mistaken commits):

git reset HEAD~3
git stash
git checkout newbranch
git stash pop

What this does:

  1. Undoes the last three commits (and their messages) to master, but leaves all working files intact
  2. Stashes away all the working file changes, making the master working tree equal to the HEAD~3 state.
  3. Switches to an existing branch newbranch
  4. Pulls the changed files out of stash and into your working directory.

You can now use git add and git commit as you normally would. All changes will be committed in newbranch.

What this doesn't do:

  • It doesn't leave random temporary branches cluttering your tree.
  • It doesn't preserve the mistaken commits and commit messages. You'll need to add a new commit message to this new commit. However, the OP stated the goal was to "take master back to before those commits were made" without losing changes and this solution does that.

I do this at least once a week when I accidentally make new commits to master instead of develop. Usually I have only one commit to rollback in which case git reset HEAD^ works to rollback just one commit.

1) Create a new branch, which moves all your changes to new_branch.

git checkout -b new_branch

2) Then go back to old branch.

git checkout master

3) Do git rebase

git rebase -i <short-hash-of-B-commit>

4) Then the opened editor contains last 3 commit information.

...
pick <C's hash> C
pick <D's hash> D
pick <E's hash> E
...

5) Change pick to drop in all those 3 commits. Then save and close the editor.

...
drop <C's hash> C
drop <D's hash> D
drop <E's hash> E
...

6) Now last 3 commits are removed from current branch (master). Now push the branch forcefully, with + sign before branch name.

git push origin +master

You can do this is just 3 simple step that i used.

1) make new branch where you want to commit you recent update.

git branch <branch name>

2) Find Recent Commit Id for commit on new branch.

git log

3) Copy that commit id note that Most Recent commit list take place on top. so you can find your commit. you also find this via message.

git cherry-pick d34bcef232f6c...

you can also provide some rang of commit id.

git cherry-pick d34bcef...86d2aec

Now your job done. If you picked correct id and correct branch then you will success. So before do this be careful. else another problem can occur.

Now you can push your code

git push

protected by Jorgesys Jan 14 '14 at 0:24

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.