We're working with an old system where we have to test changes on the dev 
server before committing, and we code new features on local branches, but a 
co-worker wants to merge in local branches to the local dev branch then 
push to origin/dev, but I'd rather have the developers push their local 
branches to origin and then make a pull request for the build master to 
review the branch changes and then merge into dev if there's no problem.

We got our model from git-flow but it says to do it either way, and we 
switch off build mastering (though I ultimately have seniority), and while 
it might be more convenient for developers to just merge their local 
branches into local dev, if all of the developer's commits are pushed up to 
origin/dev, then the build master has to filter through by commit rather 
than by branch, and corrections would have to be made either with new 
commits or cherry-picking out the bad commits, which seems more painful 
than just reviewing a branch and requesting corrections.

Which is better? He seemed a little upset but I want to know from more 
experienced people (this is the first time we've build-mastered) what they 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git 
for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to