curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Blum <dragonsi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: CURATOR-217?
Date Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:55:32 GMT
LOL!  So sorry to hear that.  Yeah, it's definitely possible to mess things
up badly.  If I'm doing something particularly risky, I'll just "git branch
original" before I start, so as to leave a branch pointer at my start point
as a safe recovery if it goes south.  I also use gitk to visualize
sometimes.

Another major selling point for rebase (-i) is that it's *really* hard to
merge the wrong branch.  If the list of commits that comes up doesn't look
basically correct, you probably did something wrong-- trying to rebase onto
the wrong branch will give you tons of commits, most of which aren't yours.

I think what you've been doing is fine, it's definitely the right approach
if you're doing a merge strategy!  I've just ended up gravitating to a
rebase strategy over the years for the reasons I've mentioned.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:

> I’ll admit that rebase terrifies me. I’ve f’d up several projects with it
> so I can’t even type the letters without breaking into a sweat. "git rebase
> -i” is a lot safer, though. Here’s what I’ve been doing - let me know if
> it’s OK. For branches that are off of CURATOR-3.0, I never merge master. I
> only merge CURATOR-3.0: “git merge CURATOR-3.0”. In fact, should we have a
> branch naming scheme to enforce this?
>
> -Jordan
>
>
>
> On August 24, 2015 at 11:30:50 AM, Scott Blum (dragonsinth@apache.org)
> wrote:
>
> Correct. When I say "main" branch vs. "feature" branch I just mean the
> stable branch everyone is working against (3.0 or master) vs. a feature
> branch where you're actively working.
>
> You'll get to a point in development where you'll think "Hey, there are
> changes on the main branch I'm working against that I really need to pull
> into my feature branch." At that point (particularly if you have an svn
> background) you'll be tempted to merge the main branch into your feature
> branch. I would suggest not doing that, as it makes the history very muddy
> to follow. Instead, my workflow is usually more like this:
>
> Suppose I'm working on CURATOR-218. It was originally branched off 3.0,
> and I want to pull in new changes.
>
> git remote update
> git rebase -i origin/CURATOR-3.0
>
> This pulls up an editor that gives me the list of commits to rebase. I
> would typically exit out of the editor to at this point to accept the
> commit list, but if I'm so inclined, I'll do things like reorder the list,
> or squash commits like like "wip" or "minor reformat" into a more curated
> set of logical commits.
>
> Once you exit the editor, git goes through and applies each commit, one at
> a time, to the head of the target branch. It's like picking up your commit
> chain and dumping it at the end of the target branch, as if all your work
> had been done against what's now the head of that branch. You'll may have
> to fix conflicts along the way, but usually not much more than if you did
> it as a merge.
>
> I'd encourage us to try this out a couple times and get a feel for the
> rebase flow. It's a little more to get your head around at first, but the
> upside is you end up with really easy to follow commit histories, which
> makes it way easier to untangle problems later if they crop up.
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you explain this in detail? For me, I have some features that are
> > 3.0.0 based so I’m treating CURATOR-3.0 as a kind of master. The true
> > “master” is Curator 2.x only, right?
> >
> > -Jordan
> >
> >
> >
> > On August 24, 2015 at 11:10:08 AM, Scott Blum (dragonsinth@apache.org)
> > wrote:
> >
> > BTW: I noticed a couple of new commits
> > (ba4b5d8cb1f9733d3901b0b619528454d3dbf8c8
> > & 2343daf29388566b0efa0b0a2ad21574fb534a27) where 3.0 is getting merged
> > into feature branches. Almost every project I've been on we don't tend to
> > do that as it leads to confusing history (this isn't just aesthetic, it
> > can
> > get harder for tooling to figure out what happened). If I want to pull
> > changes from the main branch into my feature branch, I would typically
> > *rebase* my feature branch against the main branch.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, 217 & 161 were the first two big things in 3.0.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> OK - Also, is CURATOR-161 complete? The issue is still open in Jira.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On August 24, 2015 at 12:47:21 AM, Cameron McKenzie (
> > >> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Yes, I merged it in last week some time.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Scott, did CURATOR-217 get merged into the new CURATOR-3.0?
> > >> >
> > >> > -Jordan
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message