3 ms·
Our workflow at work (with Mercurial) revolves heavily around multiple heads for a single branch and relating the commits to a JIRA issue is done by simply putt
by ygra 8y ago
Our workflow at work (with Mercurial) revolves heavily around multiple heads for a single branch and relating the commits to a JIRA issue is done by simply putting the issue number in the commit message. So we have (unnamed) feature branches and also no bookmarks for them. You just start from the latest release tag and create new commits. No need to think of a name for the feature branch, or telling the reviewer or issue tracker which bookmark belongs to that issue.
This might be mainly habit and familiarity with a different tool by now, but to me it's simpler than equivalent Git workflows as there's less ceremony involved to start working and there's no fear around accidentally losing commits because they don't belong to a branch (I kinda hate having to go into the Git reflog to find commits that are temporarily lost because they don't belong to a branch).
- bmurphy1976 8y agoWell that is just about the strangest workflow I've heard of. It sure seems like you are throwing away a lot of the power of the tools to do things manually. Honestly, I don't see the point. I've used Mercurial from the very beginning, the branches are great and bookmarks are fine. I see no reason why you wouldn't use them.
- ygra 8y agoWe use both, just not in the way a typical git workflow would use feature branches. Basically those are all anonymous heads on the same branch for us; a workflow that is probably as alien to git users as naming each and every head is to Mercurial users.