curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CURATOR-217?
Date Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:07:47 GMT
Scott,
I've been using a similar approach to Jordan given that's what I'm used to,
but I'm happy to try your approach. I'm going to try and fix up CURATOR-167
as it will no longer cleanly merge (it's been sitting there a while). So, I
should rebase master into the CURATOR-167 branch?
cheers

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@apache.org> wrote:

> 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