Development/Tutorials/Git/Feature Development Workflow/Branches and Commit policies: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:39, 28 April 2011

Warning

This page refers to a draft policy which is still to be agreed and implemented. Please take it as a reference for a work in progress project.

In our workflow, 99% of the changes should be developed inside a separate branch, and merged into integration afterwards. However, sometimes creating a branch is not worth it (e.g.: one-line fixes), and stuff can even go straight into origin without having to be staged (e.g.: bugfixes).

This page is aimed to explain different commit strategies depending on the type of changeset you want to introduce.

Creating a 2+ commit feature

You have to follow the standard branch->integration->staging procedure described in the previous documents.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In our workflow, 99% of the changes should be developed inside a separate branch, and merged into integration afterwards. However, sometimes creating a branch is not worth it (e.g.: one-line fixes), and stuff can even go straight into ''origin'' without having to be staged (e.g.: bugfixes). This page is aimed to explain different commit strategies depending on the type of changeset you want to introduce.
+{{warning|This page refers to a draft policy which is still to be agreed and implemented. Please take it as a reference for a work in progress project. }}
+In our workflow, 99% of the changes should be developed inside a separate branch, and merged into integration afterwards. However, sometimes creating a branch is not worth it (e.g.: one-line fixes), and stuff can even go straight into ''origin'' without having to be staged (e.g.: bugfixes).
+This page is aimed to explain different commit strategies depending on the type of changeset you want to introduce.
 ===Creating a 2+ commit feature===
 You have to follow the standard ''branch->integration->staging'' procedure described in the previous documents.