Re: Branch Management questions

From: Leam Hall <leamhall@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2020, 10:30 UTC
Message-ID: <d10fd33c-3d5a-c5ed-c21c-6e6eff1a6351@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2011231602755586@mail.yandex.ru>

On 10/15/20 5:55 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> 
> 
> 15.10.2020, 12:51, "Leam Hall" <leamhall@gmail.com>:
>> 1. Two developers.
>>     Dev A is working on Branch A, off a release_candidate branch.
>>     Dev B is working on Branch B, off the same release_candidate branch.
>>     Branches usually run 1-4 weeks.
>>     Dev A does some work that would help Branch B.
>>     How does Dev A get the Branch B work that is needed, in a
>>       way that does not confuse the merge process at the end
>>       of the release cycle?
> 
> Avoid long-living branches and integrate atomic parts of work into base
> branch as soon as it's done and reviewed.

Unfortunately, for some tasks 1-4 weeks is atomic. The review process is being improved as well. We still need a way to integrate the longer-lived branches cleanly. We've already had issues where attempts meant lost code.

Show 8 quoted lines

>> 2. One developer.
>>     Working on Branch P, realizes that a new functionality X is
>>       needed.
>>     X isn't specific to Branch P, but critical to it.
>>     What is the best way to deal with X, knowing that further work
>>       on X will need to be done?
> 
> Rebase P to the top of parent branch after X is integrated (see above).

Ah, so "Stop work on P, Resolve X, Rebase P from updated parent"? Let me go read up on that, it makes sense.

Thanks!

Leam