On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:05 AM, brian m. carlson <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:14:28AM -0200, Gordon Freeman wrote: >> Hello guys, im Gordon. >> >> I have a question about workflow with git that i dont know if im doing >> it right. >> I have 1 repo with 2 branchs the first is the master of the project. >> the second is a branch copy of the master but he need to have some >> specifc code because is code for a client. >> so, every time that i updade master i need to merge master with client >> branch and it give me conflicts of course that will hapen. >> Well if was just me who work on this 2 branchs it will be easy to fix >> the conflicts and let all work and shine. >> But whe have here, 10 people woking on master branch and some times code >> are lost on merge and we need to look on commits to search whats goin >> on. >> What i just asking here is if its correct the workflow that i do. If for >> some problem like this, the community have a standard resolution. Or if >> what im doing here is all wrong. > > There are many correct workflows. I personally use the workflow you've > mentioned for the exact same reason (customizations for a client), but > I'm the only developer on that repository. >
I agree with Brian that there are many correct workflows and which one you choose does depend on details of the branches you are trying to manage. Myself, I would tend to avoid a workflow in which you continually merge from master into the client branch. The reason is that once you have done this 20 times or so it will become quite difficult to understand how and why the client branch diverged from the master branch. Yes, it is in the history, but reasoning about diffs that cross merge points is just hard. Assuming that there is not much actual development on the client branch, but rather a relatively small set of customizations to configuration and things of that kind, then I would tend to maintain the client changes as topic branch, then maintain a client integration branch which represents the merge between master and the client topic branch. Changes that represent divergence of the client from the master branch would be committed to the client topic branch and then merged into the client integration branch. Refreshes from master would be merged into the integration branch. Commits directly to the integration branch would be avoided where possible. Once master has diverged from client enough that there start to be frequent conflicts when merging into the integration branch, then consider rebasing the client topic branch onto the tip of master branch and then repeat the cycle again. There is some risk of history loss with this approach - a later release of the client branch may not be a direct descendent of an earlier release of the client branch, but even this problem can be solved with judicious use of merge -s ours after you have successfully rebased the client topic branch. I can expand on how you do this, if there is interest. jon. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
