The deployment itself is the atomic end-product you care about. On that case, just using a master branch plus features branches works well, and you can do your releases in an automated fashion. I think something like Github-flow is a great approach if what you are developing is an application. My take on itīoth systems have their uses. But they ignore that there are cases where you want a manual release, a negotiation of what is supposed to go into any particular version. These are valid points and they do result on a lighter-weight workflow. Version tagging should not be carried by a human, but by an automated process whenever code is pushed to live,.Spawn all feature branches off master, and merge them back into master when ready,.Do away with the develop branch altogether,.The Github-flow proposal is that you should: Nothing is less continuous than manual switch-flipping. The main argument is that it goes against continuous delivery, since at some point someone needs to “flip a switch” and do a release from develop into master. Proponents of Github-flow (and its cousin Gitlab-flow) have a few complaints about it. Atlassian’s SourceTree supports it directly as well. There are helper scripts to assist you with Gitflow. It lets you do a release off develop at any point - if a feature isn’t ready, that’s OK, you just leave it for the next release. It allows teams to cherry-pick changes other teams may be doing on their feature branches, without needing these commits to be on develop already,.Feature branches ensure that teams working in parallel don’t trip over each other and that conflicts need to be handled only once (the moment the feature is done),.You can trivially do hotfixes without worrying about unfinished features,.master always remains as a stable reflection of your live code,.This is a great approach and it has several advantages: There are other considerations for how to deal with hotfixes, but that’s the gist of it. When you are ready to release, you merge to master and tag with a release version.Spawn off feature branches off develop for every new feature, which are merged back into it when they’re ready,.Use a develop branch as the current “snapshot” of what will go into the next release - your living beta,.Keep your master branch as the code that has been released,.I’ve found it to be a great way to organize a repository. Git-flow was described by Vincent Driessen on his 2010 post A successful Git branching model. There are two major alternatives: Git-flow and Github-flow (with Gitlab-flow being a slightly more elaborate version). Since both Dmitri Sotnikov and myself are working on some libraries at the same time, we had to decide which approach to use. Get a few people of different backgrounds involved on a project, and pretty soon a discussion about methodology will emerge. Lately, I’ve been working on Macchiato to bring web application development libraries for ClojureScript on Node.js. Branching workflow: git-flow and github-flow Choosing a branching model for macchiato
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |