3 ms·
This is IMO a potentially good system but it requires a lot of rigor. In my experience, such systems break down unless they are rigidly enforced, and that's nev
by scrollaway 8y ago
This is IMO a potentially good system but it requires a lot of rigor. In my experience, such systems break down unless they are rigidly enforced, and that's never fun for anybody.
- lysp 8y agoThe way I have set it up is to do 2 things: 1) Create a post-commit hook script that only allows commits into feature branches. This prevents accidentally committing into the dev/master branches (it still allows merges). 2) Create a script file that all developers use to start / end features which handles all the branch creation, pushing and pulling. That way the process is standardised and you cant make a mistake. eg. * script startfeature abc123-this-is-new-feature * script endfeature (this automatically picks up local open features) The only time there is ever an issue is when the end-feature causes a conflict. This is solved by rebasing your local branch, fixing up any issues in your commmits and then ending it again.