Rebase in Progress
You fix a rebase in progress state by resolving merge conflicts or stopping the sequence. Git pauses your branch update until you tell the tool to continue, skip, or abort. Engineering teams run into this paused state when multiple developers edit the same code files. When repo roles or branch permissions are too broad, anyone can push rewritten commit history. This overwrites shared work and breaks automated deployment pipelines across your whole team. How a rebase in progress workflow works
Just-in-Time Access: the complete guide
Architecture patterns, implementation strategies, and security best practices. Delivered to your inbox.
You fix a rebase in progress state by resolving merge conflicts or stopping the sequence. Git pauses your branch update until you tell the tool to continue, skip, or abort. Engineering teams run into this paused state when multiple developers edit the same code files. When repo roles or branch permissions are too broad, anyone can push rewritten commit history. This overwrites shared work and breaks automated deployment pipelines across your whole team.
How a rebase in progress workflow works
A rebase moves a sequence of commits to a new base commit on another branch. Git takes your local commits and replays them one by one on the target branch. If a commit changes lines that the target branch also changed, Git stops right away. This creates a rebase in progress state inside your local project folder.
Git saves state files inside its hidden tracking folder to remember where it stopped. While the repo sits in this state, you do not sit on a named branch. Instead, your working tree points to a temporary commit hash known as a detached head. You must open the conflicting files, pick the right code lines, and stage those fixes.
After you stage the files, you instruct Git to continue applying the remaining commits. If you realize the merge is a mistake, you can tell Git to abort. Aborting deletes the temporary state files and puts your branch back to its start state. You can also skip a single commit if its changes are already in the base branch.
What native branch rules solve and what they miss
Version control platforms give you branch protection rules to guard shared code from bad updates. These native settings decide who can log in and push commits to main branches. You can block force pushes so a confused developer does not overwrite the central history. You can also require peer reviews and passing status checks before any code merges.
Still, repo permissions only check the user role at the moment of a git push. They do not inspect what individual commands or scripts run on a server or database. When engineers fix deployment issues caused by a stuck branch, they often run manual fixes. They log into production hosts or databases using shared admin roles to repair broken states.
Native Git rules cannot control what happens during those live server or database sessions. Once an engineer logs in with a broad role, every command runs with full power. There is no built-in check to approve risky statements or mask emails and card numbers. Teams need controls that inspect each command in flight rather than just checking login roles.
Just-in-Time Access: architecture patterns and best practices
Continue reading? Get the full guide.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Best practices for clearing a stuck rebase
Before you start rewriting branch history, check that your working tree has no uncommitted changes. Fetch the latest updates from your remote repo so you work with current branch data. Keep your feature branches small and focused on one task to reduce line conflicts.
When you hit a conflict, read both sides of the code change with care. Run your local test suite at each step before you tell Git to move forward. If you must update a remote branch after finishing, use safe push options. These options check that no teammate pushed new work while you fixed your local branch.
Never rebase a public branch that other team members use for their own daily work. Rewriting shared commits forces everyone else to fix duplicate history on their own machines. Save history rewrites for your private feature branches before you open a merge request. Clear rules help your team keep a clean commit log without losing code.
Check database and API queries on the wire
Identity tools, roles, and network rules decide who opens a session. Setup alone cannot check what each query does or mask sensitive values in a response once a session starts. When workflows touch Postgres, MySQL, SQL Server, MongoDB, ClickHouse, Kubernetes APIs, SSH, or internal HTTP APIs, hoop.dev runs beside those services as an open-source proxy, a sidecar for your Postgres or API. It inspects requests coming in and results going back on the wire.
Your login details and client tools stay as they are while hoop.dev guardrails refuse bad deletes or drops before they run. On responses, hoop.dev data masking rewrites matched sensitive values in memory. Furthermore, hoop.dev holds SOC 2 Type II, is MIT licensed, and writes every query and decision to an audit trail that generates evidence for HIPAA, GDPR, and PCI DSS. See the source on GitHub.
Frequently asked questions
Why does Git say a rebase is still running when I see no conflicts?
Sometimes an editor crashes or a terminal closes before Git removes its temporary state folder. You can run the abort action or remove the leftover state directory to reset your branch.
Will aborting a paused rebase delete my uncommitted work?
Aborting returns your branch to the exact commit state it had before you started. Any committed changes stay safe, though edits you made during conflict resolution will be cleared.
Should I merge or rebase when updating a shared feature branch?
You should use a standard merge when multiple developers push to the same feature branch. A merge preserves the existing commit hashes so teammates do not face broken local histories.