Timeline for Is my git branch strategy best practice?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jan 22, 2024 at 18:49 | history | suggested | peejay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Correct grammar errors and typos. Edit for clarity and readability.
|
| Jan 22, 2024 at 18:47 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 22, 2024 at 18:49 | |||||
| Jan 18, 2024 at 12:41 | vote | accept | Jakob | ||
| S Jan 18, 2024 at 12:41 | vote | accept | Jakob | ||
| Jan 18, 2024 at 12:41 | |||||
| Jan 18, 2024 at 12:41 | vote | accept | Jakob | ||
| S Jan 18, 2024 at 12:41 | |||||
| Jan 18, 2024 at 10:08 | answer | added | Basilevs | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 18, 2024 at 10:06 | answer | added | libik | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 18, 2024 at 8:03 | answer | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 18, 2024 at 6:27 | comment | added | Jakob | @amon I think nvie gitflow (nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model) seems way more complicated than what I described. Ye, I thought about having only one version to support. But in our company features are often getting deployed very early to customer machines. Meanwhile other customers stay on an older release an should also get Bugfixes, while newer version is "tested" in production on customer machine. | |
| Jan 17, 2024 at 23:12 | comment | added | amon | Something like the Nvie Git Flow (which you're proposing) can be appropriate when you have to maintain multiple releases of the software, e.g. both an 1.x and 2.x branch. But is that really the case here? Lots of projects just have a single latest version instead, which simplifies development, especially if you control deployment. But that's a business decision. | |
| Jan 17, 2024 at 23:05 | comment | added | J_H | @Guildenstern, yes OP mentioned "Gitea server", which offers issue tracking. | |
| Jan 17, 2024 at 22:41 | comment | added | Jakob | @Guildenstern yes. Didn't mentioned it in first place. But I want to work with milestones and issues. | |
| Jan 17, 2024 at 22:39 | comment | added | Jakob | @J_H thank you for your answer. Including the issue number is a good suggestion. Will think about it and test it. | |
| Jan 17, 2024 at 22:36 | comment | added | Guildenstern | @J_H The OP doesn’t mention using a “ticket system” so I don’t see how ticket numbers are relevant to the scope of this question. | |
| Jan 17, 2024 at 22:15 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 22, 2024 at 3:05 | |||||
| Jan 17, 2024 at 21:10 | comment | added | J_H | For a small software shop, the approach that you describe sounds ideal. The only critique I would offer is that feature branch names ought to include a ticket number, so you can tell what modifications are in scope for that feature branch, and so you can tell when the feature is done, that is, when the ticket has been closed out. Otherwise there is a tendency for feature scope to creep, so a feature branch will last for a little more calendar time than was originally envisioned for it. | |
| S Jan 17, 2024 at 20:28 | review | First questions | |||
| Jan 18, 2024 at 9:28 | |||||
| S Jan 17, 2024 at 20:28 | history | asked | Jakob | CC BY-SA 4.0 |