Difference between revisions of "Developer Guide - Git Workflows"
(Add Separate changes paragraph) |
(Managing Branches paragraph) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
As a general rule, you should try to split your changes into small logical steps, and commit each of them. They should be consistent, working independently of any later commits, pass the build, etc. This makes the review process much easier, and the history much more useful for later inspection and analysis, for example with [http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-blame.html git-blame(1)] and [http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-bisect.html git-bisect(1)]. | As a general rule, you should try to split your changes into small logical steps, and commit each of them. They should be consistent, working independently of any later commits, pass the build, etc. This makes the review process much easier, and the history much more useful for later inspection and analysis, for example with [http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-blame.html git-blame(1)] and [http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-bisect.html git-bisect(1)]. | ||
| − | To achieve this, try to split your work into small steps from the very beginning. It is always easier to squash a few commits together than to split one big commit into several. Don’t be afraid of making too small or imperfect steps along the way. You can always go back later and edit the commits with <tt>git rebase --interactive</tt> before you publish them. You can use <tt>git stash save --keep-index</tt> to try a build independent of other uncommitted changes; see the EXAMPLES section of [http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-stash git-stash(1)]. | + | To achieve this, try to split your work into small steps from the very beginning. It is always easier to squash a few commits together than to split one big commit into several. Don’t be afraid of making too small or imperfect steps along the way. You can always go back later and edit the commits with <tt>git rebase --interactive</tt> before you publish them. You can use <tt>git stash save --keep-index</tt> to try a build independent of other uncommitted changes; see the EXAMPLES section of [http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-stash.html git-stash(1)]. |
| + | |||
| + | == Managing Branches == | ||
| + | There are two main tools that can be used to include changes from one branch on another: [http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-merge.html git-merge(1)] and [http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-cherry-pick.html git-cherry-pick(1)]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Merges have many advantages, so we try to solve as many problems as possible with merges alone. Cherry-picking is still occasionally useful; see "Merging upwards" below for an example. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Most importantly, merging works at the branch level, while cherry-picking works at the commit level. This means that a merge can carry over the changes from 1, 10, or 1000 commits with equal ease, which in turn means the workflow scales much better to a large number of contributors (and contributions). Merges are also easier to understand because a merge commit is a '''promise''' that all changes from all its parents are now included. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is a tradeoff of course: merges require a more careful branch management. The following subsections discuss the important points. | ||
[[Category:Developer Guide]] | [[Category:Developer Guide]] | ||
Revision as of 11:05, 17 August 2012
Description
This document attempts to write down and motivate some of the workflow elements used for managing the development of Bering-uClibc with git. This guide was an adapted version of the GitWorkflows document that is used for the git project.
Separate changes
As a general rule, you should try to split your changes into small logical steps, and commit each of them. They should be consistent, working independently of any later commits, pass the build, etc. This makes the review process much easier, and the history much more useful for later inspection and analysis, for example with git-blame(1) and git-bisect(1).
To achieve this, try to split your work into small steps from the very beginning. It is always easier to squash a few commits together than to split one big commit into several. Don’t be afraid of making too small or imperfect steps along the way. You can always go back later and edit the commits with git rebase --interactive before you publish them. You can use git stash save --keep-index to try a build independent of other uncommitted changes; see the EXAMPLES section of git-stash(1).
Managing Branches
There are two main tools that can be used to include changes from one branch on another: git-merge(1) and git-cherry-pick(1).
Merges have many advantages, so we try to solve as many problems as possible with merges alone. Cherry-picking is still occasionally useful; see "Merging upwards" below for an example.
Most importantly, merging works at the branch level, while cherry-picking works at the commit level. This means that a merge can carry over the changes from 1, 10, or 1000 commits with equal ease, which in turn means the workflow scales much better to a large number of contributors (and contributions). Merges are also easier to understand because a merge commit is a promise that all changes from all its parents are now included.
There is a tradeoff of course: merges require a more careful branch management. The following subsections discuss the important points.
