Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Switch from git-flow to a simple git branching model #58

Closed
jmaupetit opened this issue Nov 18, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

Switch from git-flow to a simple git branching model #58

jmaupetit opened this issue Nov 18, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@jmaupetit
Copy link
Contributor

Historically at TailorDev we used to be git-flow people. This is why you will find multiple branches in this repository, e.g. master, develop, and feature branches (feature/foo). As previously mentioned by @willdurand and after a few weeks working with a simple git branching model, I think we need to clean up this repository and only keep the master branch. Every feature or hotfix will be developed in a feature branch and merged to master. All tags should point to master commits.

If we do so, this will have consequences for people having forked this repository since we will force push master and remove develop.

Are you ready for this?

@willdurand
Copy link
Contributor

Force pushing on master is not mandatory. For forks, it is not a real issue since patchs should still apply. The issue is with PRs as you cannot change the target branch.

Anyway, I appreciate this.

@k4nar
Copy link
Collaborator

k4nar commented Nov 18, 2015

I don't have any strong feeling about this, so go ahead :) .

@jmaupetit
Copy link
Contributor Author

To simplify branching model, here is what I did:

  • master branch has been merged into develop
  • original master branch has been deleted
  • develop has been renamed master

By doing so, all PR have been closed.

I hope this will not be too painful, but it had to be done.

@waynew
Copy link
Contributor

waynew commented Jan 20, 2016

I've kind of lost interest in #52 - but if anyone is interested in picking up where I left off they're more than welcome :) And I'll be happy to answer any questions they might have.

@larsborn larsborn mentioned this issue Jan 22, 2016
9 tasks
@larsborn
Copy link
Contributor

I rebased as you wished. Will continue work in #74.

@waynew what was the exact intention? Maybe I can take over.

@waynew
Copy link
Contributor

waynew commented Jan 22, 2016

@larsborn #52 is a good starting place.

Basically I wanted an easy way to say, "How much more time do I have to work this week?" so I added a progress bar. I also wanted a shortcut for less typing for the workweek command. watson workweek was so much more of a pain to type than watson ww 😉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants