git poll
-
Current Story: Where I am working now we are using GIT, like many company before. But, and this is a first for me, everyone is working on their own branch and, every now and then people make a pull request to develop to be approved by the lead developer. Of course one should make sure the pull request has no conflict. But since 2 weeks of work from an other developer can drop anytime... despite me merging my branch from develop every morning I am having lots of painful merge conflicts... every few days.... What I wonder: is it common practice to have every developer working on its own branch instead of the whole team working on a common branch?
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
I guess that is why I could never get my head around "version control" if one was a one man band. A typical "project" includes images, pdf's, text files, utilities, etc. Accumulating over time. I zip everything every day or 2 and create 10 or more generations. Covered most brain fogs.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
-
Rule 1: you never really know what you are doing, so we will come to your office and kill you if you edit directly on the production branch Rule 2: if you think you know what you are doing, please refer to Rule 1.
-
Current Story: Where I am working now we are using GIT, like many company before. But, and this is a first for me, everyone is working on their own branch and, every now and then people make a pull request to develop to be approved by the lead developer. Of course one should make sure the pull request has no conflict. But since 2 weeks of work from an other developer can drop anytime... despite me merging my branch from develop every morning I am having lots of painful merge conflicts... every few days.... What I wonder: is it common practice to have every developer working on its own branch instead of the whole team working on a common branch?
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
All features should be on a different branch. If you are getting lots of conflicts then I have to wonder about your project architecture. Are you using something like PrismLibrary to separate out your modules?
-
Current Story: Where I am working now we are using GIT, like many company before. But, and this is a first for me, everyone is working on their own branch and, every now and then people make a pull request to develop to be approved by the lead developer. Of course one should make sure the pull request has no conflict. But since 2 weeks of work from an other developer can drop anytime... despite me merging my branch from develop every morning I am having lots of painful merge conflicts... every few days.... What I wonder: is it common practice to have every developer working on its own branch instead of the whole team working on a common branch?
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
Plan your work in small units (1 day) if possible. Except where specifically required squash the history of your local branch (`git rebase -i`) down to a single commit. You'll simplify resolution of merge conflicts, keep your features as atomic units, and keep your history clean of junk comments. Your workflow should look something like: pull master -> branch -> commit -> squash -> rebase -> push pull request -> review -> ff merge -> repeat. Commit -> squash -> rebase gets repeated as a whole or individually as needed.