3 ms·
You just reminded me of a coworker I had that would work for months on a branch, then spend a couple weeks trying to merge it. Eventually I had to yell at him b
by ktRolster 11y ago
You just reminded me of a coworker I had that would work for months on a branch, then spend a couple weeks trying to merge it. Eventually I had to yell at him before he would stop. I felt bad about yelling and apologized to his cubicle-mate.
Small feature branches, or if you handle it by merging daily, cause no problem though.
- OJFord 11y ago> or if you handle it by merging daily Right, as far as I remember the "successful git branching model" still allows - even encourages - merging master back into feature branches. "Long-lived" doesn't have to mean "really out of date".
- e_proxus 11y agoI've done this previously, and it works, but it creates a very messy history where you have merges going back and forth. We typically had several merges to get changes in from master for each feature branch, even if they only lasted for a few days (inside a sprint). Then there's the final merge back to master. If you look at the repo from afar after a couple of features and weeks, it gets very hard to read.
- ktRolster 11y agouse: > git merge --rebase Keeps the history clean, if that's something you care about
- e_proxus 11y agoYeah, that's what I prefer at all times. Haven't figured out a good way to share feature branches with that model yet though. Sometimes you need to work on a feature together with other people without checking it in to the main branch, and doing force pushes isn't pretty...