I currently have the issue that I got existing tags and feature branches, relying on several workflow.yaml files to build/deploy/etc.
Whenever I do a change on any workflow via the default branch, I also need to pull these changes into every other branch.
Otherwise, the deployment of an existing branch fails or doesn't have those changes of the workflows.
That isn't the biggest issue though.
The biggest issue I got is for tags, because I don't want to modify existing tags.
Is there any solution or workaround to this?
Related
what I want to do is the exact opposite of what people normally do.
I want to create GitHub issues that apply only to a particular branch I'm currently working on. Ideally, they would not be visible when browsing other branches of the repo. Even more ideally, they would only be visible to the repo owner (me).
To give a little more context, I'm working on the next version of a rather large macOS app, and the new issues I want to create would only be relevant to this new version, not to the master branch (old app version). That is why I want these issues to only be associated with a specific branch, not with the repo as a whole.
I know that I can associate an issue with a "project" or "milestone" but I'm looking for something different.
Any ideas ? Thanks.
This is not possible. Issues are repository wide. You can add in the title or body of the issue that it is for a specific branch. Or you can use labels saying what branch it is for. You can also make a branch for the issue (if you have write access to the repository) differentiation it even more. And for when the PR is made you can link it.
I'm running builds with AzureDevops piplines. When I'm creating new pipline I'm not queueing it and just saving. If CI trigger is selected pipline will run if anything is checked in.
But on the very first run/chack-in pipline will be liked (associated) to ALL check-ins (changesets/commits) that happened before the current one and to all workitems of those chack-ins.
This behaviour is not desired for me. Is there a way to disable it?
On all subsequent check-ins build will be associated only with the one that triggered the pipline. And this is what I want for the first build as well, for it to be associated only with the chack-in that triggered it.
Without seeing exactly what's happening, it's hard to provide advice. It could also behave differently if you're using Git or TFSVC variants. Here's a few things to try:
Disable the CI trigger, do your first check-in, then re-enable the trigger. That might skip the change-set and work item affiliation one time.
Delete the offending build after it runs or do the laborious task of manually deleting all links in it.
If you're using Git, you can also limit the CI trigger by using a Pull Request with Squash merge. This will consolidate the commits down to one.
There isn't the way to disable it. It would compare previous run, then include all changesets between them. So, for first run, it must includes all previous changesets.
You may create a new branch for a folder, then configure build for that branch. Learn about branching strategies for Team Foundation Version Control (TFVC) and how to select an effective strategy
Keeps track of files in eclipse, who made changes on which branch
Hello Guys, I am using BitBucket for project management, and i Create different branches as per features. Multiple teams works on their own branches and some time multiple teams make changes in same file.
So at the time of release I have to merge all the created branches in one major branch, but at time of merge i get a lot of merge conflicts,
So basically what i want, when developer going to make changes in any file, dev will get to know all submitted changes in another branches for this same file, (where dev going to make changes), So he or she will know the possible scenarios.
An alternative is to ask for a developer to rebase his/her own branch on top of the main branch first.
Then you can merge that branch easily enough.
That way:
if there are any conflicts, they are detected and resolve by the developer (who knows best how to resolve it)
each merge is a trivial one.
I have a problem with merging changes between branches.
I have default branch default.
When I'm starting working under new issue I make new branch like #565 from default and working with it. After working I'm merging code changes from #565 into default - it work great.
Also I have branch anotherbranch - this is like production branch, we can merge something there if it was tested on default.
Sometime I need to merge code changes from #565 into anotherbranch. When I trying to do this, Mercurial offer me to merge ALL code changes between #565 AND anotherbranch (because #565 is child of default).
How I can merge ONLY code changes of #565?
Someone suggested the graft command, and that's probably what you'll end up using, but let me take a step back and suggest that this problem will go away if you improve your process a bit.
In general if you fix bugs in new branches branched from anotherbranch and add new features in branches from default you'll have the best of both worlds. Fix bugs off of your "production" branch and then merge that production branch, called anotherbranch, back into default immediately.
That's the usual process and that makes sure that the bug fixes are everywhere but that new features don't hit production until they've gotten good testing.
I think what you need is the graft command ("copy changes from other branches onto the current branch").
The best way to fix this is, as Ry4an suggests, to modify your workflow. You may also want to consider using the mq extension to create patches. Patches are a great way to apply only certain changes to a repository, particularly if you're not ready for a full-on merge.
I'm trying to identify the proper way of working with multiple branches on Gerrit that would match our workflow.
The way we work with branches right now is: we have master & feature branch. Master is the branch we want to polish and make it ready for release, while feature is obviously a field of intensive work. Now, in our particular case whenever somebody works on a bug fix, they:
create a change targeted for master branch
cherry pick it to the feature branch targeted change
once gerrit code review completes, submit both changes.
now the way i understand cherry-pick, it selects individual commit and merges it to the current change. if that is the case, i would expect to have no merge conflicts in the end, and indeed this workflow works perfectly with just GIT. Gerrit, however, most likely due to its nature (branches are not merged remotely the way these are locally and get a different sha tag) lists a tremendous number of conflicting files in the end.
Now, I resolved all these issues by applying merge strategy (ours on feature, theirs on master), but it does not feel right: if anything was not propagated, it just got discarded.
My question is: is there a safe workflow, similar to the above one, that would in the end produce a clean merge with gerrit?
I would say that it's better, in this case, to merge than to cherry pick.
A cherry pick adds the same changes but not the same commit. So while the source is the same on a cherry pick and merge the git tree is different. When the tree is different and you later do a merge git will think that the commit you previously cherry picked is missing and try to merge that change as well, even if the actual code is already there. That's probably why you get a lot of conflicts.
I would propose another way of working.
When you do normal work you develop on feature and push to Gerrit as normal.
When you do a patch (ie bug fix) on the stable production environment you do that directly on master (or local branches if you like but not on feature)
When the patch as been approved in Gerrit it get's merged into the real master and you can make a pull request to get that change to your local copy. Your version of master is now the same as Gerrits master
Now you would merge all new changes on master into feature. Make sure you do a rebase so that the patch ends up before anything you've already done on feature
Once it's time to deploy all new features you can merge feature into master, push to Gerrit (if you have permissions you can by pass gerrit by pushing directly to master instead of refs/for/master as these changes are already reviewed)
Once all changes are on Gerrits master you do a pull on your master and a merge into feature with rebase making feature a clean branch to work on. It's of course totally valid to have a new feature each release. Both work fine.
I'm a little confused, as this flow should work just fine. If other users submit changes before your bug fix is reviewed/verified/submitted, that could result in merge conflicts, but that should be rare.
If you:
Fix a bug on master
Push to review (creating change A in gerrit)
cherry-pick change A on top of the feature branch (resolving any conflicts from master to feature)
Push the cherry-picked change to review (creating change B)
Review/verify/submit changes A & B
Everything will work fine. The only way for merge conflicts to occur is if other users upload and submit changes between steps 1 and 5. Are you seeing different behavior? Can you provide more details?