|
I know we've been committing things to master and occasionally branching when necessary. That's worked really well so far but now that we have 4 developers on the team it's time to switch to something more robust. I spent two minutes searching google and found the following article http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ please consult the following image:  beginning immediately we are to install the git flow extensions and use those. All changes will be merged into a branch called "develop" instead of "master". Failure to comply will result in shaming during the morning stand up.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
lgtm
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
ml shitflow haha lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
suck my fuckin nuts op
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
i think they need to pull them over to a local branch first to do that
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
this is what we do at work. it sucks dick. you're working on your feature branch. it came from devel which is synched to some master a while back. the devel head doesn't work with the last release, which is based on the latest master tag and code from many other repos because devel has changed enough to not be perfectly compatible with other components. so in reality if you want to be able to test any changes, you have to fork from master, making sure to stay testing on the release for the tag you forked from, but when you commit you have to merge into devel. it's dumb, gfy op
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
The Management posted:this is what we do at work. it sucks dick. layer 8 issue
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
I just have feature branches off master where the CI runs against the feature branch/PR before it gets merged Releases are tagged and cut off of master as well, when we feel like it (usually once every couple weeks or so)
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:I just have feature branches off master where the CI runs against the feature branch/PR before it gets merged This isn't robust enough. We need a "successful" branching model.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
akadajet posted:This isn't robust enough. We need a "successful" branching model. add in an integration branch where all merged pull requests go and only commits that are part of a green ci build based on the contents of that branch are pulled into master
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Ah, finally a way a for non-programmers to ensure job security by introducing needlessly complex terrible things into the production process that only they understand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:suck my fuckin nuts op rude
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
sorry can you rebase this thread off of develop it looks like you accidentally created it off master thanks don't worry develop is only 500 commits ahead, shouldn't be any issues
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
its one thing to take the whole "gitflow" writeup as an exploration of how to juggle development, releases, and hot-fixing with git repos, is another to go full absolutist rule maniac with it my best strategy has been maintaining a release and development branch, with a thin layer of bureaucracy on committing to them to force communication between developers, which it turns out is the best strategy of them all its worked well for groups of ~5 give or take people
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
who gives a god damned gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
pram posted:who gives a god damned gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
i don't need to do this because i have a real job op
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
oh good the monthly bloody gitflow
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
git flow is stupid and yet every company i've ever worked at that has used git inevitably has someone propose that we switch to it with no explanation as to why it's better other than that it's "standard"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Plorkyeran posted:git flow is stupid and yet every company i've ever worked at that has used git inevitably has someone propose that we switch to it with no explanation as to why it's better other than that it's "standard" oh so the reasoning behind 90% of technical decisions
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
graph posted:rude So is gitflow
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Plorkyeran posted:git flow is stupid and yet every company i've ever worked at that has used git inevitably has someone propose that we switch to it with no explanation as to why it's better other than that it's "standard" remind them that ed is the standard text editor
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
carry on then posted:remind them that ed is the standard text editor for most people espousing gitflow this would go over their head
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
pram posted:who gives a god damned gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
gitflow seems fine op, I don't know what the big deal is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
akadajet posted:for most people espousing gitflow this would go over their head some of them will be hipsters who run with it and treat ed as the next vi and insist that using it improves your productivity
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 09:05
|
|
