www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - A successful Git branching model

reply mta`chrono <chrono mta-international.net> writes:
Have you seen this? What do you think of it? Maybe we'll use this model
in our company in nearest future.

http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
Jul 29 2012
next sibling parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 20:24:42 UTC, mta`chrono wrote:
 Have you seen this? What do you think of it? Maybe we'll use 
 this model
 in our company in nearest future.

 http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

I use it every day at work and love it. I've shared it a couple of times on this NG but it doesn't seem to attract much attention. Regards, Brad Anderson
Jul 29 2012
parent Guillaume Chatelet <chatelet.guillaume gmail.com> writes:
On 07/29/12 22:36, Brad Anderson wrote:
 I use it every day at work and love it.

+1
Jul 29 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 22:36 +0200, Brad Anderson wrote:
 On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 20:24:42 UTC, mta`chrono wrote:
 Have you seen this? What do you think of it? Maybe we'll use=20
 this model
 in our company in nearest future.

 http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

I use it every day at work and love it. I've shared it a couple=20 of times on this NG but it doesn't seem to attract much attention.

I don't really see the advantage of separating develop and master. And personally I am not a great fan of having feature branches in the mainline repository. There is a lot about the document and the ideas that are good, but I don't follow the whole model. For me master is the development branch =E2= =80=93 and if using continuous delivery can always be branched and released. All major and minor releases have separate maintenance branches. with bugfix releases being tags on that. This seems enough, I am not sure of the usefulness of anything more complex. But I may be missing something. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Jul 29 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-07-29 22:24, mta`chrono wrote:
 Have you seen this? What do you think of it? Maybe we'll use this model
 in our company in nearest future.

 http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

Yes, please. We badly need at least something better than we have now. Don't know if it exactly need to be this model, but something needs to change. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Jul 29 2012
prev sibling parent Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:
--047d7b343a9e84cff404c6074e59
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk>wrote=
:

 I don't really see the advantage of separating develop and master.

serves as a nice way to see the current release's source code (a pointer to the latest release). You could just use "master" in place of "develop" and have a "production" branch fill the role that "master" does in this model just as easily.
 And personally I am not a great fan of having feature branches in the
 mainline repository.

someone else prior to a pull request they can just pull from your branch on GitHub directly.
 There is a lot about the document and the ideas that are good, but I
 don't follow the whole model. For me master is the development branch =96
 and if using continuous delivery can always be branched and released.
 All major and minor releases have separate maintenance branches. with
 bugfix releases being tags on that.  This seems enough, I am not sure of
 the usefulness of anything more complex. But I may be missing something.

It can be modified to fit whatever the need is, of course, but there is a lot of value in how well it is documented. Any changes made or alternative models used should be well documented too to lower the barrier to entry for contributors. Everyone needs to be working from the same mental model. Regards, Brad Anderson --047d7b343a9e84cff404c6074e59 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Russel Winder <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hr= ef=3D"mailto:russel winder.org.uk" target=3D"_blank">russel winder.org.uk</= a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gma= il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef= t:1ex"> <div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">I don&#39;t really see the advantag= e of separating develop and master.</div></div> <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>master isn&#39;t strictly necessary si= nce everything is tagged anyway. =A0It just serves as a nice way to see the= current release&#39;s source code (a pointer to the latest release). You c= ould just use &quot;master&quot; in place of &quot;develop&quot; and have a= &quot;production&quot; branch fill the role that &quot;master&quot; does i= n this model just as easily.</div> <div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;= border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> And personally I am not a great fan of having feature branches in the<br> mainline repository.<br> <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>They aren&#39;t in this model. If you = need to share a feature branch with someone else prior to a pull request th= ey can just pull from your branch on GitHub directly.</div><div>=A0</div> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> There is a lot about the document and the ideas that are good, but I<br> don&#39;t follow the whole model. For me master is the development branch = =96<br> and if using continuous delivery can always be branched and released.<br> All major and minor releases have separate maintenance branches. with<br> bugfix releases being tags on that. =A0This seems enough, I am not sure of<= br> the usefulness of anything more complex. But I may be missing something.<br=
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It can be modified to fit whatever the ne=

=A0Any changes made or alternative models used should be well documented t= oo to lower the barrier to entry for contributors. Everyone needs to be wor= king from the same mental model.</div> <div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Brad Anderson</div></div> --047d7b343a9e84cff404c6074e59--
Jul 30 2012