In this way you will avoid having duplicate copies for feature1 in both master and develop.Įssentially you should treat your feature1 merge into master as a hotfix, and after any hotfix into master you should immediately merge master back down into develop. In your case though, you can avoid this by doing the cherry-pick or rebase described above, merging into master, and then immediately merging master back into develop. If you had already merged into develop, and then realized you needed them in master prior to when you can merge develop into master, then you would have had no choice but to cherry-pick or rebase those commits with duplicate copies. Note that in your example, the commits you would cherry-pick are not already merged into a "long lived branch", since you didn't merge feature1 into develop yet. This means that as a rule of thumb you should merge instead of cherry-picking commits that are already merged into long lived branch. In general, in the final version of your long term history, it's best to avoid duplicate copies of commits, when possible. This shows us that our branch (on the live server) is behind origin/master (the central repo) by 1 commit and. Why use the same branch instead of creating a new branch? nothing to commit (working directory clean). See eftshift0's answer for more details about this syntax and graphical examples. The result would be that each of the commits that are new to feature1 would be cherry-picked in order on top of master, and it would rewrite feature1 so that you can now merge it into master. Take all commits on feature1 that are not reachable by develop, and replay them, one by one, in order, on top of master. (The reason for this is explained below.) Using your example branches the advanced rebase command would be: git rebase develop feature1 -onto master IMHO this would be the best "simple and reliable method" that you seek, especially considering that you'll most likely want to rewrite your current branch instead of creating a new branch. Note that a rebase is essentially a series of cherry-picks. Or, you can use an advanced rebase command, perhaps even on the same branch. If you have more than 1 commit, you could cherry-pick them individually in order, or use the range syntax: git cherry-pick ~1. If you have just 1 commit the cherry-pick is trivial. git branch develop developByMohammadEmad developByMohsen developByMorteza master. Then we run the command git merge new-branch to merge the new feature into the master branch.Currently we are cherry picking the commits to achieve this.Ĭonceptually, that is the correct thing to do in this case. develop is a branch local in your pc, origin/develop is a branch in the repo. Once the feature is complete, the branch can be merged back into the main code branch.įirst we run git checkout master to change the active branch back to the master branch. This will change the active branch to the new branch: $ git checkout new-branchĪt this point, commits can be made on the new branch to implement the new feature. To start working on the new branch we first need to run the command git checkout new-branch. Once a feature branch is finished and merged into the main branch, the changes in it become the main branch, until you merge a new feature branch into the main branch.Īt this point we have created a new branch, but are still located on the source branch. You're branching out a new set of changes from the main branch. A branch is like a tag, and the commits are shared. Note: Behind the scenes, Git does not actually create a new set of commits to represent the new branch. a set of changes has been committed on the feature branch – it is ready to be merged back into the master branch (or other main code line branch depending on the workflow in use). Other modern but centralized version control systems like Subversion require commits to be made to a central repository, so a nimble workflow with local branching and merging is atypical.Ī commonly used branching workflow in Git is to create a new code branch for each new feature, bug fix, or enhancement.Įach branch compartmentalizes the commits related to a particular feature. In legacy Version Control Systems (like CVS) the difficulty of merging restricted it to advanced users. This fundamentally improves the development workflow for most projects by encouraging smaller, more focused, granular commits, subject to rigorous peer review. Git's distributed nature encourages users to create new branches often and to merge them regularly as a part of the development process - and certain Git workflows exploit this extensively.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |