Working on merged branches whilst seeing current master
- From
rhlee <richard@webdezign.co.uk>
- Date
- Nov 11, 2009, 17:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1257959806206-3987667.post@n2.nabble.com>
Hi again gits,
I think my current query is somewhat related to my previous issue of "Preserving branches after merging on ancestor" that you help me with last time (many thanks).
I use branches for features. I have a branch and I merged it into my master branch as I thought it was finished. But it turns out I wasn't and so I need to work on it again.
I have made some more changes (branches and merges) on master. So what I should do is checkout that branch, work on it committing along the way and then merge it again onto my master branch.
However I though I am working on a feature branch I want to be also working from the master branch as reference. Yes I know I probably should not be working like this. My branches should be wholly independent. But I doing web development not kernel development so there is much less modularity and branches/features have a tendency to creep into one another. If you want to get and idea of my workflow see my thread last week "Preserving branches after merging on ancestor".
So how do I work again on a branch that has been preiously merged whilst "seeing" the current changes on the master or another branch?
Is this a bad idea first of all. Should I change my workflow instead?
If I do try to do this I guess I got several ways.
I think I could pull(?) or merge the changes so far from the master branch into the feature branch. But this seems like an uneccesary duplication.
Or should I just create a new branch? But if I do this there is no link between the old and new branch.
Richard
-- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Working-on-merged-branches-whilst-seeing-current-master-tp3987667p3987667.html Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com.