A quick solution would be to make the flag permitted for sandbox projects.
The eventual solution will be found since we'll be able to delete the master branch when it is not the default branch.
Feel free to share your own rebase experiences in the comments.
Rebasing, like most of , should be learned and applied to be useful - not feared or misunderstood - so if you’ve been bitten by rebase in the past, or are simply curious about how it can be used, hopefully I can persuade you here of its utility.
You can also rebase against a commit on your current branch, then reapply (or “replay”) subsequent commits on top of that.A normal push to the authoritative repository involves taking your new work as new commits and plopping those commits as-is on top of the branch in the repository.However, when a developer's local Git repository is not in sync with (or up-to-date with) the authoritative repository (the one we normally push to), then it can't do a fast-forward merge, and it will balk with an error message.Edit 2015-08-30: The bottom line years later: Use the (Github's) Pull Request methodology, with a responsible person doing the pulls. I learned the hard way recently that there are some unexpectedly horrible things that can happen to a project in the Git source control management system due to its distributed nature... There is one huge difference between Git and older server-based systems like Subversion and CVS. There's (usually) an authoritative repository, but it's really fundamentally just a peer repository that gets stuff sent to it. But that has some implications that aren't obvious at first.In Subversion, when you make a change, you just push that change up to the server, and the server handles applying just that change to the master copy of the project.Like so: Basic rebase is a good idea when you’re about to merge into master, and master has progressed since you branched off of it.