4 ms·
Your branches are private. Only public branches should be a considered for check-out. Private branches can be rebased at will but the public branches are off l
by crististm 13y ago
Your branches are private. Only public branches should be a considered for check-out.
Private branches can be rebased at will but the public branches are off limits. A public shared repository may help in this case.
- barrkel 13y agoI'm assuming a GitHub / Stash / similar workflow. Branches are not private; they are not kept just locally. (By private, I mean unpublished, in such a way that someone may have merged or branched off my branch.)
- crististm 13y agoIf people pull from a random github branch I think it is their problem. They should pull only from what you declare as public branches with stable history. I keep on github only the master branch and publish the feature branch only when it is ready. After the maintainer merges the feature branch, I delete it from github.
- barrkel 13y agoI am, of course, talking about private GitHub repos used within a single company, and not about random people pulling down branches, but rather team development.
- crististm 13y agoMy point is that people should be branching from stable branches. From your explanations, I understand your scenario is this: a private (shared by a team) repository on github. You work on your PC and then push on the shared repository on github. If this is the case, you should push only when the branch is stable. If people really need those branches and you rebase them, you jut make it hard for them. Either you stop rebasing what they consider public branches or you reconsider what are your public branches.
- barrkel 13y agoOh, we don't have a problem, mostly because we stopped rebasing much. Which is basically my conclusion from the root of the thread.