Timeline for Git(flow) workflow for web development
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2015 at 11:08 | history | edited | hd. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 85 characters in body
|
| Jun 5, 2015 at 11:00 | comment | added | hd. | Here's a quick paint model I've mocked up for you for visual aid. http://i.imgur.com/A1M97qA.png - hope that helps explain myself. | |
| Jun 5, 2015 at 10:52 | comment | added | TheWolf |
testing is not stable, but development is? Shouldn't testing be more stable, because it is updated less frequently and only after some testing has been done by the developers?
|
|
| Jun 5, 2015 at 9:33 | comment | added | hd. |
The version numbers aren't published, but I am certain they are used internally. Personally I prefer the v<core version>.<feature release>.<bug fixes> idea than timestamp, but that's for you and your team to discuss. testing should be branched off development as development is continuously updated and should hold the stable version (testing isn't always stable)
|
|
| Jun 5, 2015 at 9:27 | comment | added | TheWolf |
Well, as most websites, it will be developed continously and will not be marketed with version numbers or anything, those would be solely for internal use. Therefore we rather thought about revision numbers or timestamps. In our (current) model, development is branched off testing, which makes me wonder whether we can simply delete it and create a new one.
|
|
| Jun 5, 2015 at 9:09 | comment | added | hd. | May I ask why you don't plan to have version numbers? It'll help with tracking the core version, features and hot/bug fixes that are currently on live (ie: production is on v2.5 and testing is on v2.7.9 - Ah, we've got 2 features and 9 bug fixes to go live (it wouldn't be this severe, but you get the idea)). Creating fresh test branches should be a necessity as once you've merged (into master to go live), you'd delete the branch to clean up your project and not cause confusion (ah, we have a test branch, but is it all live?) | |
| Jun 5, 2015 at 9:05 | comment | added | TheWolf | First of all, thank you for your detailed answer! One follow-up question: We don't really plan to have formal "releases" and version numbers, which is why we don't just adopt the gitflow model. Is it really necessary to repeatedly create fresh testing branches? Can't we just keep on working on one? | |
| Jun 5, 2015 at 8:00 | history | edited | hd. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 5, 2015 at 7:55 | history | answered | hd. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
