> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Juyung Seo [mailto:seojuyu...@gmail.com] > Sent: den 3 oktober 2013 06:55 > To: Enlightenment developer list > Subject: Re: [E-devel] Git, merges, and better work-flows > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Tom Hacohen > <tom.haco...@samsung.com>wrote: > > > On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > > > > > I would like to suggest a new work-flow. This work-flow will not be > > > mandatory, but just an allowed alternative to the current "commit > > > to master" approach. > > > > > > At the moment we do not allow merges, at all. This was to prevent > > > people from littering the log with their inability to rebase (git > > > pull --rebase) their local changes on top of the existing commits. > > > This will still remain the same. I'd like to suggest using merges > > > to our advantage. > > > > > > I suggest the following: > > > For fixes, small features, and the like, do the same as you do now. > > > Commit and push to master. > > > > > > For bigger features, rewrites, or any form of a few commits that > > > are tied together by being part of the same set, do as follows > > > (it's obviously simpler than that, I listed everything to over- > > > simplify things): > > > 1. Create a branch (either local or remote) for your change. > > > 2. Work on that branch. > > > 3. When ready, instead of pushing to master: > > > 3. rebase over master (git fetch; git rebase origin/master). > > > 4. switch to master (git checkout master) > > > 6. git merge --no-ff your-feature-branch-name > > > 7. Describe your feature in the commit message. > > > 8. push to master (git push or git push origin master). > > > > > > I've done a few example commits on > > > https://git.enlightenment.org/devs/tasn/git-work-flow-example.git/ > > > > > > This work-flow lets us have linear history, while having feature- > > > sets show as a single merge that can easily be reverted, provide a > > > good description about a feature and the commits that introduced it > > > and I find generally easier for the eye. There are also technical > > > advantages, for example, if you run "git log --first-parent" you > > > will only see the merge commits, cleaning the log from all the > > > fluff involving a feature letting you just see the feature. Another > > > advantage is that "git bisect" will not go inside the merged branch > > > unless the issue was introduced there. > > > > > > Please feel free to inspect my repo, more specifically, the log: > > > https://git.enlightenment.org/devs/tasn/git-work-flow-example.git/log/ > > > > > > To see how it looks. > > > > > > Important note: commits on the merge branch should be treated as if > > > they are on master, that is, don't use this as an excuse to make ugly > > > commits with bad commit messages. > > > > > > Again: I'm not trying to make it mandatory, just to allow this sort > > > of merges. > > > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > Needless to say, that if agreed upon, I will add some documentation > > about how best to follow this work-flow. > > Just update https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/git_practices/ must be > enough > :) > > Daniel Juyung Seo (SeoZ) > > > -- > > Tom.
The branching model Tom describes is a personal favorite of mine. Here is a description of it with some dos and don'ts and other tips: https://gist.github.com/jbenet/ee6c9ac48068889b0912 //Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
