|Deletions are marked like this.||Additions are marked like this.|
|Line 40:||Line 40:|
|* [Jendrik] I don't think they make sense for Git and only complicate the workflow.|| * [Jendrik] I don't think they make sense for Git and only complicate the workflow.
* [Malte] I agree with Jendrik. In Mercurial they do something important to the metadata, in git they don't, and they are not idiomatic.
Back to developer page.
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?
- 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?
- git checkout -b issue999
- git commit --allow-empty -m "start branch 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 commit --allow-empty -m "close branch issue999"
- git checkout master
- git merge --no-ff issue999
- git branch -d issue999
- git push
Discussion on workflow:
- do we want "opening" and "closing" commits for branches?
- [Silvan] I don't think we necessarily do, but it wouldn't hurt to have them.
- [Jendrik] I don't think they make sense for Git and only complicate the workflow.
- [Malte] I agree with Jendrik. In Mercurial they do something important to the metadata, in git they don't, and they are not idiomatic.