3 ms·
If 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
by crististm 13y ago
If 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.