4 ms·
Or, don’t branch. Is branching so essential?
by philosopher1234 8y ago
Or, don’t branch. Is branching so essential?
- lordnacho 8y agoIsn't it essential for mental organisation? How do you think about what's different about a set of changes without some sort of DAG?
- hopler 8y agoMake one change at a time.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y agoJust do one thing at a time? Today, I am working on X; my commits are for X, and details are in the commit message.
- dharmab 8y agoThat breaks as soon as you have to interrupt working on Nice To Have Feature X to working on Inportant Bugfix/CVE Y.
- addicted 8y agoHow often does that happen to an individual developer though? Once a month? In an averagely well run company even that may be towards the higher end. Should your entire development strategy be based on a once a month occurrence?
- idontpost 8y ago> Once a month? Closer to once a week for me.
- username90 8y agoThey are grouped by linking them to issues in the issue tracker. All commits will then get a link to the issue and the issue gets a link back to the commit. This way you can easily track and read the full context of old changes. Example issue, note that public ones are not associated with commits: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/122326181 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/122326181
- raverbashing 8y agoIf you don't want to be stuck while a colleague does changes that conflict with what you're changing then yes, you need branching.
- hknd 8y agoYou don't need branching for this. If 2+ people are working on the same file which might result into a conflict, you can either: - handle the conflict as soon as you merge your branches somewhen in the future or - handle it when trying to commit your change to head Only difference is whether you handle the conflict now, or in the future.
- hopler 8y agoYou need to communicate with your colleagues to coordinate your work.