|
Size: 1376
Comment: add page Git: collection of discussion and TODO items for git workflow
|
Size: 2907
Comment: more on git workflow
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 8: | Line 8: |
| * we want to use branches for issues as with Mercurial (TODO: is there a precise workflow we follow, e.g., from the slides Gabi showed us? Or the git project we looked at?) | * we want to use branches for issues and basically follow our previous Mercurial workflow, i.e., have one feature branch for each issue |
| Line 12: | Line 12: |
| * [Jendrik] Thankfully, this can be automated (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5894946/how-to-add-gits-branch-name-to-the-commit-message, https://gist.github.com/bartoszmajsak/1396344) * [Jendrik] I'd prefer "[issue999] Fix bug" over "issue999: Fix bug". * TODO: what did we decide w.r.t. to having "cross references"/links to issues etc. in commit messages? |
|
| Line 13: | Line 16: |
| TODO: add infos on how to do something like git bisect with --first-parent etc. (Malte sent a few links) | Best practices: * TODO: git bisect with --first-parent etc. (Malte sent a few links) * TODO: how to configure git + meld * TODO: can we use github's facilities on the webpage for, e.g., merging pull requests or does this do "wrong" things? |
| Line 15: | Line 21: |
| TODO: github workflow: can we use their features, such as for merging pull request of extern collaborators, if that ever happens? TODO: old suggestion for workflow, needs to be adapted according to above discussion: * git branch issue999 * git checkout issue999 * git commit --allow-empty -m "start branch issue999" |
Suggested workflow: * git checkout -b issue999 |
| Line 27: | Line 29: |
| * ... * git checkout master * git merge --no-ff issue999 * git branch -d issue999 * git push .gitconfig file: {{{ [merge] tool = meld [mergetool "meld"] #cmd = meld "$LOCAL" "$BASE" "$REMOTE" --output "$MERGED" cmd = meld "$LOCAL" "$MERGED" "$REMOTE" --output "$MERGED" [diff] tool = meld [difftool "meld"] cmd = meld "$LOCAL" "$REMOTE" [difftool] prompt = false [alias] ci = commit st = status meld = difftool # aliases that match the hg in / out commands out = !git fetch && git log FETCH_HEAD.. in = !git fetch && git log ..FETCH_HEAD }}} * [Silvan] I also found out that meld actually knows about hg/git, so instead of configuring above and typing hg meld/git meld, one could also just type meld . * [Silvan] Unfortunately, I haven't found a way for git merge to automatically open meld instead of first doing an incomplete merge and then viewing the failed merge via hg mergetool, which, if configured as above to take $MERGED as the middle file, contains the failed merge in the >>>> ... <<<< ... format, which I really don't like. If anyone finds out how to let git automatically merge what it can and then immediately prompt the user via mergetool instead of requiring this to be called manually, and even better, without showing the failed merge, I would be very happy. |
Back to developer page.
Git
Our Git workflow (work in progress)
Outcome of the discussion in the Fast Downward meeting on 21 February:
- we want to use branches for issues and basically follow our previous Mercurial workflow, i.e., have one feature branch for each issue
- when integrating branches into master, we do not squash commits and we do not fast forward, i.e., we want to preserve the non-linear history of commits and always have a proper merge commit for the integration
- we delete branches (the pointer) after integration
- to identify commits on a branch, we prepend "issue999: " to all commits of the branch issue999
[Jendrik] Thankfully, this can be automated (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5894946/how-to-add-gits-branch-name-to-the-commit-message, https://gist.github.com/bartoszmajsak/1396344)
- [Jendrik] I'd prefer "[issue999] Fix bug" over "issue999: Fix bug".
- TODO: what did we decide w.r.t. to having "cross references"/links to issues etc. in commit messages?
Best practices:
- TODO: git bisect with --first-parent etc. (Malte sent a few links)
- TODO: how to configure git + meld
- TODO: can we use github's facilities on the webpage for, e.g., merging pull requests or does this do "wrong" things?
Suggested workflow:
- git checkout -b issue999
- ...
- git commit -m "some changes"
- ...
git tag -a issue999-base -m "add tag issue999-base" <rev>
git tag -a issue999-v1 -m "add tag issue999-v1" <rev>
- git push --set-upstream origin issue999 --tags
- ...
- git checkout master
- git merge --no-ff issue999
- git branch -d issue999
- git push
.gitconfig file:
[merge] tool = meld [mergetool "meld"] #cmd = meld "$LOCAL" "$BASE" "$REMOTE" --output "$MERGED" cmd = meld "$LOCAL" "$MERGED" "$REMOTE" --output "$MERGED" [diff] tool = meld [difftool "meld"] cmd = meld "$LOCAL" "$REMOTE" [difftool] prompt = false [alias] ci = commit st = status meld = difftool # aliases that match the hg in / out commands out = !git fetch && git log FETCH_HEAD.. in = !git fetch && git log ..FETCH_HEAD
- [Silvan] I also found out that meld actually knows about hg/git, so instead of configuring above and typing hg meld/git meld, one could also just type meld .
[Silvan] Unfortunately, I haven't found a way for git merge to automatically open meld instead of first doing an incomplete merge and then viewing the failed merge via hg mergetool, which, if configured as above to take $MERGED as the middle file, contains the failed merge in the >>>> ... <<<< ... format, which I really don't like. If anyone finds out how to let git automatically merge what it can and then immediately prompt the user via mergetool instead of requiring this to be called manually, and even better, without showing the failed merge, I would be very happy.