I have been doing all my work on the master branch. Since I created my project and pushed it into my Github repository, I have been the only one working on it so I have had no need to fetch.
I want to work on an experimental feature, so I want to create a new branch. When I go to "Team -> Switch To -> New Branch" I see this:
It mentions creating a branch based on a local branch. I have read EGit Local vs. Remote repositories but to be honest I am quite confused by it. I'm not sure if I should be fetching or cloning because both are mentioned there, and even then I'm not sure how I would do it (like I said, as I am the only contributor to this project all I've had to do so far is commit and push).
And even then, I'm not sure if Rebase, Merge, None should be my pull strategy as shown in the screenshot?
I was hoping I could just create a new branch, commit and push like I normally do and then switch back to my master branch when I didn't want to work on my experimental feature. It seems like it's much more complicated than that.
I'd like to be able to do this through Eclipse so I learn how for the future, but will it be easier if I just do this on the Git command line? Thanks in advance.
It sounds like what you want is to create your (local) branch based the remote/origin master (use the drop-down list at the top) and then select Merge as your pull strategy. That way when you are working on the branch and pull, it will pull from master and merge any changes directly into the branch. It also allows you to push the branch to remote, which give you another level of safety in case your local repo gets lost or messes up somehow.
Another piece of advice I've learned the hard way: whenever I'm about to do something with git that I'm not totally confident about, I make a quick ZIP or copy of my local repo. That way it's easy to throw away whatever I did and go back to a good state. Sad that git drives us to such measures, isn't it?
Related
We have three developers working on a microsoft visual studio project that is being hosted on Github but we are using the VS Github extension tool.
We are a little confused about how many branches are necessary for our project.... This is what we have right now.
Master Branch -> Development Branch.
The idea that we are currently working with, is that we will each individually make changes, and then push up to the Development Branch to test with. When Coder 1 makes a change, Coder 2 and 3 will see the change and can merge their projects with the Dev branch and vice versa- so we stay in sync.... Then when we are comfortable with the changes, we merge Development Branch into Master Branch.
We are wondering if we need more branches, or if more branches would be userful....
For example what if we had:
Master Branch -> Development Branch -> Coder1 Branch, Coder2 Branch, Coder3 Branch.
Is there any benefit to adding more branches? We only have three coders and are wondering what the setup should look like.
Thanks!
With only three programmers, I believe everyone can work on the development branch at the same time as long as there's proper communication on what parts each are working on. Everyone can work on the development branch and when it's time to push their own changes, I advise:
git stash, which will put your changes into a temporary stash and revert back to HEAD, pretending like you did not change anything
git pull, which will pull the others' changes
git stash pop, which will bring back your own changes. This way, you can build "on top" of other people's changes. If there's a merge conflict, "local" will be the other person's changes and "remote" will be your own changes.
But if you really want to be safe and formal, separate branches for each person can work, and using GitHub's page, it's easy to implement a pull request and do code review.
All in all, it just depends on how formal you want it to be.
I am pretty new to Git and I am using sourcetree as a client.
I know that in Git two developers work on the same branch at a time since they have local copies of the remote branch.
So here is a scenario :
A and B are working on a branch feature/release1.0
A commits code to local branch.
Now B commits the code and pushes it to the remote branch as well.
Now A will have to push his changes as well as Pull changes made by B.
So what will A do in this case ?
In this case, A should pull B's changes down first, make sure everything works, commit, and push.
Generally we (my team) don't work quite like that.
When we have two developers working closely on a feature, we work on separate branches and merge into a shared feature branch.
Among the advantages of this is that you can commit and push on your own schedule, which means that you can make your code work without worrying about the other developer's changes and your code makes it to the server quicker. That is, it's somewhere other than your own machine, somewhere that's probably backed up.
A must git pull first (some merge may be needed) and than push the code.
If A try to push his code in the first place, git will tell that the remote and local branches have diverged and instruct the developer to pull the code first.
If you pay attention to git commit error messages (and git status messages) you will always know what to do.
As you said, A has to get the changes from B (git pull) before pushing her changes. It is likely she has to deal with some conflicts, which should be resolved locally before pushing the code.
Apart from that, you should probably reconsider your branch scheme to avoid this kind of conflicts. Would it be possible to work in different branches? For instance, by redefining the tasks, to be more fine-grained.
Moreover, it is weird, at least for me, the name or the branch feature/release-1.0. Looks like there are releases by features basis, os something like that. Take a look at http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/. See how the release branches are fed from the developing branch, and this one receives the commits from the features branches.
Hope it helps!
We're using Mercurial to manage a project that has two teams working on it. Our team manages the repo, and we're using hg flow on it, with default, develop and feature branches. The other team does their work in a separate repo, with us pulling in their changes every now and then.
The other team isn't particularly up to speed on Mercurial, and they've wanted to do their work on the default branch. This makes pulling in their changes annoying, because we'd like to keep our default branch clean.
We've done what Ned Batchelder suggested in http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/201111/advanced_mercurial_branches.html, but that still leaves commits in our repo with their branch marked as default. So does using Bitbucket's pull requests.
Other options that spring to mind are using patches or using graft and strip. I'd love to hear suggestions that would be less hassle.
If you want "Hard way, but nice results" you have to forget about easy pure-Bitbucket interface of syncing repositories
With Convert Extension --branchmap option you can rename any branch in source repository into any name. Thus, your workflow will be something like:
Prepare file for branch-mapping
Clone|pull from fork to local repository
Convert cloned repo, using branchmap, into repository with good naming of branch(es)
Push result of convert into your Bitbucket0repository
Or consider using bookmarks instead of named branches. Then you can move their changesets into your develop bookmark without any of its past default-ness showing through.
hey're not entirely crazy for wanting to develop in the default branch; it's the standard advice: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/StandardBranching#Don.27t_use_a_name_other_than_default_for_your_main_development_branch
I am new to Perforce and find it really hard to follow its workflow..
I have used Mercurial before (not in any advanced ways), but what I lack most in Perforce is the idea of named branches.
Let me explain what I'd like to do:
I get the latest revisions of all files and want to work on a new feature/story/task..
I create a brach, say "Feature 3021"
I code, save changes in this branch (hg commit)
I can save changes to a central server (hg push)
When I'm done coding, I merge the changes from "Feature 3021" with the main branch (default, master, etc.) - after that the main branch has the code I wrote
I can close the named brach ("Feature 3021") so that further commits are not possible.
I don't need this exact behavior in Perforce, but something analogous. I know that Perforce is centralized, so the commit-push step would be probably one, but this is a minor problem here.
All I care is to be able to save my work in version control at any time, even if it's not 100% ready - perhaps to a different branch. I'd also like other users to be able to be able to get my code (from this different branch), but only if they want this - the default branch should stay unafected as long as I don't merge my changes with it.
Is it possible? I am using Server 2012.2
Can you upgrade to Server 2013.1 or later? There's a great feature there, called Task Streams.
Here's some references:
http://www.perforce.com/blog/130627/task-streams-even-if-you-are-classic-perforce-shop
http://www.perforce.com/blog/130206/task-streams
http://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/manuals/p4v/streams_task.html
The analogous flow in Perforce would be:
Maintain a main-line "branch" at some path, say //depot/default
To create a feature branch, integrate from //depot/default to //depot/feature-3021
Work under //depot/feature-3021 and submit
When you are ready to merge back, integrate //depot/feature-3021 to //depot/default
Regarding closing the branch after its use, there are a couple of options that I can think of. You could either change permissions or simply delete it. The delete could always be recovered.
Also note the paths don't need to be at the same hierarchy. A more reasonable branch strategy might use paths like this.
Main-line: //depot/default
Developer branches: //depot/dev/${user}/${feature}
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?