Search Results

Search found 8 results on 1 pages for 'gitflow'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Advice Needed: Developers blocked by waiting on code to merge from another branch using GitFlow

    - by fogwolf
    Our team just made the switch from FogBugz & Kiln/Mercurial to Jira & Stash/Git. We are using the Git Flow model for branching, adding subtask branches off of feature branches (relating to Jira subtasks of Jira features). We are using Stash to assign a reviewer when we create a pull request to merge back into the parent branch (usually develop but for subtasks back into the feature branch). The problem we're finding is that even with the best planning and breakdown of feature cases, when multiple developers are working together on the same feature, say on the front-end and back-end, if they are working on interdependent code that is in separate branches one developer ends up blocking the other. We've tried pulling between each others' branches as we develop. We've also tried creating local integration branches each developer can pull from multiple branches to test the integration as they develop. Finally, and this seems to work possibly the best for us so far, though with a bit more overhead, we have tried creating an integration branch off of the feature branch right off the bat. When a subtask branch (off of the feature branch) is ready for a pull request and code review, we also manually merge those change sets into this feature integration branch. Then all interested developers are able to pull from that integration branch into other dependent subtask branches. This prevents anyone from waiting for any branch they are dependent upon to pass code review. I know this isn't necessarily a Git issue - it has to do with working on interdependent code in multiple branches, mixed with our own work process and culture. If we didn't have the strict code-review policy for develop (true integration branch) then developer 1 could merge to develop for developer 2 to pull from. Another complication is that we are also required to do some preliminary testing as part of the code review process before handing the feature off to QA.This means that even if front-end developer 1 is pulling directly from back-end developer 2's branch as they go, if back-end developer 2 finishes and his/her pull request is sitting in code review for a week, then front-end developer 2 technically can't create his pull request/code review because his/her code reviewer can't test because back-end developer 2's code hasn't been merged into develop yet. Bottom line is we're finding ourselves in a much more serial rather than parallel approach in these instance, depending on which route we go, and would like to find a process to use to avoid this. Last thing I'll mention is we realize by sharing code across branches that haven't been code reviewed and finalized yet we are in essence using the beta code of others. To a certain extent I don't think we can avoid that and are willing to accept that to a degree. Anyway, any ideas, input, etc... greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How should I incorporate a hotfix back into a feature branch using gitflow?

    - by Mark Trapp
    I've started using gitflow for a project, and I have an outstanding feature branch as well as a newly created hotfix. Per the gitflow workflow, the hotfix gets applied to both the master and develop branches, but nothing is said or done about extant feature branches. Nevertheless, I'd like to incorporate the hotfix changes back into my feature branch, which as near as I can tell leaves three options: Don't incorporate the changes. If the changes were needed for the feature branch, it should've been part of the feature branch. Merge develop back into the feature branch. This seems to follow the gitflow workflow the best, but would cause out-of-order commits. Rebase the feature branch onto develop. This would preserve commit order but rebasing seems to be completely absent from the general gitflow workflow. What's the best practice here?

    Read the article

  • What is the correct way to deal with similar but independent features?

    - by Koviko
    Let's say we have a feature request come in and we begin work on it, which we'll call feature-1. It introduces some new logic to the application, which we'll call logic-A and logic-B. A programmer branches from the release branch and begins work on the feature. Soon after, we get another feature request, which we'll call feature-2. It will implement logic-A and logic-C into the application. The logic A being implemented by this feature is the same logic-A as was implemented in feature-1. Let's also say that given logic-B, logic-A might be implemented slightly differently than it would have been given logic-C, and also differently given both logic-B and logic-C (eg. with only one feature, the code would be less flexible than with both). How should this situation be handled? Concrete Example (to help with any confusion in my wording) feature-1 is a feed from programmers.stackexchange.com. feature-2 is a feed from gaming.stackexchange.com. logic-A is the implementation of a feed at all (assuming the application currently has no feeds), which links to the content as well and gives related information. logic-B is that the feed's source is from programmers.stackexchange.com. Adds to logic-A that the related programming language is displayed. logic-C is that the feed's source is from gaming.stackexchange.com. Adds to logic-A that the related game's name and box art is displayed.

    Read the article

  • What are some cool git or .gitignore tricks & best practices? [closed]

    - by 01walid
    Git is just awesome and fast VCS, however, knowing better this tool will help you incredibly increase your productivity and save your time. Here we can try to make a collection of tips, tricks and useful links to better take advantage of git, this question can have some more sub-questions, I mean: what are some usefull commands that reverse or rectify commits/adding/removing mistakes? what are .gitignore & Global .gitignore best practices? especially with private/secure files that contains passwords, api keys, local config and so on ... .gitignore first or git add <files> first? what are the advantages/disadvantages of both being the first/last. links to blog post, articles, would be sufficient. I thought every sub-question is not worthy opening a whole post each alone, I think centralizing these tips in one question post would help many people.

    Read the article

  • Finish feature reverted commits from develop

    - by marco-fiset
    I am using git as a version control system, and using git-flow as the branching model. I started a feature branch some weeks ago in order to maintain the system in a clean state while developping that feature. The main development continued on the develop branch, and changes from develop were merged periodically into the feature, to keep it up to date as much as possible. However came the time where the feature was finished, and I used git-flow's finish feature to merge the feature back into develop. The merge was successfully done, but then I found out that some of the commits I made in develop were reverted by the merge commit! Nowhere in develop or in the feature branch were these changes reverted, I can't see any commit that overwrote them. I just can't find anything. The only theory I have for the moment is that git is failing on me, but that would be extremely unlikely. Maybe I did some kind of wrong manipulation that made this situation come true? I can trace back in the history when the commit was made. I can see that the changes from that commit were reverted by the merge commit. Nowhere in the branch I see a commit that reverts those changes. Yet they were reverted. How is this even possible?

    Read the article

  • Git doesn't sync files until committed, even if checked out in a different branch

    - by DertWaiter
    Okay, I have git 1.7.11.1 on Windows and I have a local test repository with 2 branches. One is master with index.php and help.php. I then create another branch called slave :) I run from git bash rm help.php and it disappears from the folder, but I don't stage anything. I switch to checkout master branch and it is supposed to restore file help.php because it is not modified in the master branch, isn't it? And it does not do it. When I go back to the slave branch and commit and then switch to checkout master then help.php appears. Is that the way it is supposed to to work? Why?

    Read the article

  • Git dont sync files untill committed even if checkout different branch

    - by DertWaiter
    Ok i have git 1.7.11.1 on windows and i have local test reposotory with 2 branches one is master with index.php help.php then i create another branch called slave :) I run from git bash rm help.php and it dissapears from the folder, but i dont stage anything. I switch to checkout master branch and it supposed to restore file help.php because its not modified in master branch isnt it? And it does not do it. When i back to slave branch and commit and then switch to checkout master then help.php appears. is that the way it supposed to be why?

    Read the article

  • How Mature is Your Database Change Management Process?

    - by Ben Rees
    .dbd-banner p{ font-size:0.75em; padding:0 0 10px; margin:0 } .dbd-banner p span{ color:#675C6D; } .dbd-banner p:last-child{ padding:0; } @media ALL and (max-width:640px){ .dbd-banner{ background:#f0f0f0; padding:5px; color:#333; margin-top: 5px; } } -- Database Delivery Patterns & Practices Further Reading Organization and team processes How do you get your database schema changes live, on to your production system? As your team of developers and DBAs are working on the changes to the database to support your business-critical applications, how do these updates wend their way through from dev environments, possibly to QA, hopefully through pre-production and eventually to production in a controlled, reliable and repeatable way? In this article, I describe a model we use to try and understand the different stages that customers go through as their database change management processes mature, from the very basic and manual, through to advanced continuous delivery practices. I also provide a simple chart that will help you determine “How mature is our database change management process?” This process of managing changes to the database – which all of us who have worked in application/database development have had to deal with in one form or another – is sometimes known as Database Change Management (even if we’ve never used the term ourselves). And it’s a difficult process, often painfully so. Some developers take the approach of “I’ve no idea how my changes get live – I just write the stored procedures and add columns to the tables. It’s someone else’s problem to get this stuff live. I think we’ve got a DBA somewhere who deals with it – I don’t know, I’ve never met him/her”. I know I used to work that way. I worked that way because I assumed that making the updates to production was a trivial task – how hard can it be? Pause the application for half an hour in the middle of the night, copy over the changes to the app and the database, and switch it back on again? Voila! But somehow it never seemed that easy. And it certainly was never that easy for database changes. Why? Because you can’t just overwrite the old database with the new version. Databases have a state – more specifically 4Tb of critical data built up over the last 12 years of running your business, and if your quick hotfix happened to accidentally delete that 4Tb of data, then you’re “Looking for a new role” pretty quickly after the failed release. There are a lot of other reasons why a managed database change management process is important for organisations, besides job security, not least: Frequency of releases. Many business managers are feeling the pressure to get functionality out to their users sooner, quicker and more reliably. The new book (which I highly recommend) Lean Enterprise by Jez Humble, Barry O’Reilly and Joanne Molesky provides a great discussion on how many enterprises are having to move towards a leaner, more frequent release cycle to maintain their competitive advantage. It’s no longer acceptable to release once per year, leaving your customers waiting all year for changes they desperately need (and expect) Auditing and compliance. SOX, HIPAA and other compliance frameworks have demanded that companies implement proper processes for managing changes to their databases, whether managing schema changes, making sure that the data itself is being looked after correctly or other mechanisms that provide an audit trail of changes. We’ve found, at Red Gate that we have a very wide range of customers using every possible form of database change management imaginable. Everything from “Nothing – I just fix the schema on production from my laptop when things go wrong, and write it down in my notebook” to “A full Continuous Delivery process – any change made by a dev gets checked in and recorded, fully tested (including performance tests) before a (tested) release is made available to our Release Management system, ready for live deployment!”. And everything in between of course. Because of the vast number of customers using so many different approaches we found ourselves struggling to keep on top of what everyone was doing – struggling to identify patterns in customers’ behavior. This is useful for us, because we want to try and fit the products we have to different needs – different products are relevant to different customers and we waste everyone’s time (most notably, our customers’) if we’re suggesting products that aren’t appropriate for them. If someone visited a sports store, looking to embark on a new fitness program, and the store assistant suggested the latest $10,000 multi-gym, complete with multiple weights mechanisms, dumb-bells, pull-up bars and so on, then he’s likely to lose that customer. All he needed was a pair of running shoes! To solve this issue – in an attempt to simplify how we understand our customers and our offerings – we built a model. This is a an attempt at trying to classify our customers in to some sort of model or “Customer Maturity Framework” as we rather grandly term it, which somehow simplifies our understanding of what our customers are doing. The great statistician, George Box (amongst other things, the “Box” in the Box-Jenkins time series model) gave us the famous quote: “Essentially all models are wrong, but some are useful” We’ve taken this quote to heart – we know it’s a gross over-simplification of the real world of how users work with complex legacy and new database developments. Almost nobody precisely fits in to one of our categories. But we hope it’s useful and interesting. There are actually a number of similar models that exist for more general application delivery. We’ve found these from ThoughtWorks/Forrester, from InfoQ and others, and initially we tried just taking these models and replacing the word “application” for “database”. However, we hit a problem. From talking to our customers we know that users are far less further down the road of mature database change management than they are for application development. As a simple example, no application developer, who wants to keep his/her job would develop an application for an organisation without source controlling that code. Sure, he/she might not be using an advanced Gitflow branching methodology but they’ll certainly be making sure their code gets managed in a repo somewhere with all the benefits of history, auditing and so on. But this certainly isn’t the case (yet) for the database – a very large segment of the people we speak to have no source control set up for their databases whatsoever, even at the most basic level (for example, keeping change scripts in a source control system somewhere). By the way, if this is you, Red Gate has a great whitepaper here, on the barriers people face getting a source control process implemented at their organisations. This difference in maturity is the same as you move in to areas such as continuous integration (common amongst app developers, relatively rare for database developers) and automated release management (growing amongst app developers, very rare for the database). So, when we created the model we started from scratch and biased the levels of maturity towards what we actually see amongst our customers. But, what are these stages? And what level are you? The table below describes our definitions for four levels of maturity – Baseline, Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced. As I say, this is a model – you won’t fit any of these categories perfectly, but hopefully one will ring true more than others. We’ve also created a PDF with a flow chart to help you find which of these groups most closely matches your team:  Download the Database Delivery Maturity Framework PDF here   Level D1 – Baseline Work directly on live databases Sometimes work directly in production Generate manual scripts for releases. Sometimes use a product like SQL Compare or similar to do this Any tests that we might have are run manually Level D2 – Beginner Have some ad-hoc DB version control such as manually adding upgrade scripts to a version control system Attempt is made to keep production in sync with development environments There is some documentation and planning of manual deployments Some basic automated DB testing in process Level D3 – Intermediate The database is fully version-controlled with a product like Red Gate SQL Source Control or SSDT Database environments are managed Production environment schema is reproducible from the source control system There are some automated tests Have looked at using migration scripts for difficult database refactoring cases Level D4 – Advanced Using continuous integration for database changes Build, testing and deployment of DB changes carried out through a proper database release process Fully automated tests Production system is monitored for fast feedback to developers   Does this model reflect your team at all? Where are you on this journey? We’d be very interested in knowing how you get on. We’re doing a lot of work at the moment, at Red Gate, trying to help people progress through these stages. For example, if you’re currently not source controlling your database, then this is a natural next step. If you are already source controlling your database, what about the next stage – continuous integration and automated release management? To help understand these issues, there’s a summary of the Red Gate Database Delivery learning program on our site, alongside a Patterns and Practices library here on Simple-Talk and a Training Academy section on our documentation site to help you get up and running with the tools you need to progress. All feedback is welcome and it would be great to hear where you find yourself on this journey! This article is part of our database delivery patterns & practices series on Simple Talk. Find more articles for version control, automated testing, continuous integration & deployment.

    Read the article

1