Thanks Mike, Will give it a spin today some time. cheers On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> if you're going to tray that, here's what you want to do (assuming command > line) > > git checkout CURATOR-167 # start with the branch that you are changing > git rebase -i master # rebase the current branch on top of the given branch > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Scott, > > I've been using a similar approach to Jordan given that's what I'm used > to, > > but I'm happy to try your approach. I'm going to try and fix up > CURATOR-167 > > as it will no longer cleanly merge (it's been sitting there a while). > So, I > > should rebase master into the CURATOR-167 branch? > > cheers > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > LOL! So sorry to hear that. Yeah, it's definitely possible to mess > > > things up badly. If I'm doing something particularly risky, I'll just > > "git > > > branch original" before I start, so as to leave a branch pointer at my > > > start point as a safe recovery if it goes south. I also use gitk to > > > visualize sometimes. > > > > > > Another major selling point for rebase (-i) is that it's *really* hard > to > > > merge the wrong branch. If the list of commits that comes up doesn't > > look > > > basically correct, you probably did something wrong-- trying to rebase > > onto > > > the wrong branch will give you tons of commits, most of which aren't > > yours. > > > > > > I think what you've been doing is fine, it's definitely the right > > approach > > > if you're doing a merge strategy! I've just ended up gravitating to a > > > rebase strategy over the years for the reasons I've mentioned. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > > jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I’ll admit that rebase terrifies me. I’ve f’d up several projects with > > it > > >> so I can’t even type the letters without breaking into a sweat. "git > > rebase > > >> -i” is a lot safer, though. Here’s what I’ve been doing - let me know > if > > >> it’s OK. For branches that are off of CURATOR-3.0, I never merge > > master. I > > >> only merge CURATOR-3.0: “git merge CURATOR-3.0”. In fact, should we > > have a > > >> branch naming scheme to enforce this? > > >> > > >> -Jordan > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On August 24, 2015 at 11:30:50 AM, Scott Blum (dragonsi...@apache.org > ) > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Correct. When I say "main" branch vs. "feature" branch I just mean the > > >> stable branch everyone is working against (3.0 or master) vs. a > feature > > >> branch where you're actively working. > > >> > > >> You'll get to a point in development where you'll think "Hey, there > are > > >> changes on the main branch I'm working against that I really need to > > pull > > >> into my feature branch." At that point (particularly if you have an > svn > > >> background) you'll be tempted to merge the main branch into your > feature > > >> branch. I would suggest not doing that, as it makes the history very > > muddy > > >> to follow. Instead, my workflow is usually more like this: > > >> > > >> Suppose I'm working on CURATOR-218. It was originally branched off > 3.0, > > >> and I want to pull in new changes. > > >> > > >> git remote update > > >> git rebase -i origin/CURATOR-3.0 > > >> > > >> This pulls up an editor that gives me the list of commits to rebase. I > > >> would typically exit out of the editor to at this point to accept the > > >> commit list, but if I'm so inclined, I'll do things like reorder the > > list, > > >> or squash commits like like "wip" or "minor reformat" into a more > > curated > > >> set of logical commits. > > >> > > >> Once you exit the editor, git goes through and applies each commit, > one > > at > > >> a time, to the head of the target branch. It's like picking up your > > commit > > >> chain and dumping it at the end of the target branch, as if all your > > work > > >> had been done against what's now the head of that branch. You'll may > > have > > >> to fix conflicts along the way, but usually not much more than if you > > did > > >> it as a merge. > > >> > > >> I'd encourage us to try this out a couple times and get a feel for the > > >> rebase flow. It's a little more to get your head around at first, but > > the > > >> upside is you end up with really easy to follow commit histories, > which > > >> makes it way easier to untangle problems later if they crop up. > > >> > > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > >> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Can you explain this in detail? For me, I have some features that > are > > >> > 3.0.0 based so I’m treating CURATOR-3.0 as a kind of master. The > true > > >> > “master” is Curator 2.x only, right? > > >> > > > >> > -Jordan > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On August 24, 2015 at 11:10:08 AM, Scott Blum ( > dragonsi...@apache.org > > ) > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > BTW: I noticed a couple of new commits > > >> > (ba4b5d8cb1f9733d3901b0b619528454d3dbf8c8 > > >> > & 2343daf29388566b0efa0b0a2ad21574fb534a27) where 3.0 is getting > > merged > > >> > into feature branches. Almost every project I've been on we don't > tend > > >> to > > >> > do that as it leads to confusing history (this isn't just aesthetic, > > it > > >> > can > > >> > get harder for tooling to figure out what happened). If I want to > pull > > >> > changes from the main branch into my feature branch, I would > typically > > >> > *rebase* my feature branch against the main branch. > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Scott Blum < > dragonsi...@apache.org> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Yeah, 217 & 161 were the first two big things in 3.0. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > >> > > jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> OK - Also, is CURATOR-161 complete? The issue is still open in > > Jira. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On August 24, 2015 at 12:47:21 AM, Cameron McKenzie ( > > >> > >> mckenzie....@gmail.com) wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Yes, I merged it in last week some time. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > >> > >> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Scott, did CURATOR-217 get merged into the new CURATOR-3.0? > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > -Jordan > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
