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, 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? I want to know from more experienced people (this is the first time we've build-mastered) what they think. -- 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.
