A developer starts working on a feature, "Fix a hardcode link" Calling, once done, it has been passed to another developer for a peer review. Peer reviewer is fine with code changes and merge feature branch in test branch "fix a hardcode link" Waiting for a technical test. The next developer starts working on the next card and creates a branch like this: The developer completes the job and sends it for reviewer. Peer reviewer is happy with the code passing in the TT and UAT, all are happy and it goes on the PO. POO is happy in feature branch merging that I did it It has been found that we are not only enclosing the patches fixed for the particular card, but also implementing the entire history that comes with the branch. The result is that "Fix a hardcode link" is staging but it has not been processed. Any new If this is When you are merging the test where feature branches are merged once, another developer,
staging is a branch where facility branches merge once Is given when he goes through peer review, TT and UAT.
git checkout test git checkout -b story / bar < / Pre>
GIT checkout staging GIT merge merge / story / bar
feature to
test to
staging ...): Workflow of this publication A.
feature branch should be developed above the latest official version that you will be using with that <
feature .
staging , then this means:
git fetch git checkout -b newFeature origin / staged #hack ... # Ensure that the new feature still works as a top level # Since the staging can get other features # git rebase ori gene / staging # local and / or unit testing during the development of the new feature GIT Fetch ... # Git Push for review - u original newfactor
feature to
> test or
newFeature at the top of
test , then
at the top of staging , and then
Merge newFeature (merge faster forward).
Any conflicts during the rebase mean that the facility has been rejected (the developer has to fetch, then resize it so that the newFeature branches are causing local trouble Why is that conflict).
No comments:
Post a Comment