GitFlow considered harmful

Post by sytse » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 2:36 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #36

sytse wrote: post #24

GitLab CEO here. I agree that GitFlow is needlessly complex and that there should be one main branch. The author advises to merge in feature branches by rebasing them on master. I think that it is harmful to rewrite history. You will lose cherry-picks, references in issues and testing results (CI) of those commits if you give them a new identifier. The power of git is the ability to work in parallel without getting i…

A big annoyance is UI: * most git UI don't provide for branch filtering or --left-only (which hides "accessory"/"temporary" merged branches unless explicitly required) * developers won't necessarily care for correct merge order, breaking "left-only" providing a mainline view The end result is, especially for largeish projects, merge-based workflows lead to completely unreadable logs.

I'm not sure I completely understand. But it would be great if you can send small merge requests to GitLab to try to improve these things.

Post by jkyle » Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 5:09 AM UTC

antihero wrote: post #281

jkyle wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say I create a feature branch, this is what a day's work might look like. 839a882 Fix bad code formatting [James Kyle] 6583660 Updated plugin paths for publish env [James Kyle] 847b8f3 First stab at a mobile friendly style. [James Kyle] a70d3f7 Added new articles, updated a couple. [James Kyle] b743ec3 format changes on article [James Kyle] 68231e7 Some udpates, added an article [James Kyle] 2a92c5e Added plugins to…

Is there a handy macro/script type thing that simplifies squashing a release branch and using the commit messages as bullet points (with the ability to edit out crap)?

The built in interactive rebase does just that.

Re: GitFlow considered harmful

Re: GitFlow considered harmful