Geek asks and answers

Git merging multiple projects

We will deploy the project to our own code base, but it will closely monitor the project from which it was visible.

I see that it works as follows:

The Forked project will make some initial changes to the rebranding product. I would not want to share these changes with the original project, but in the future I want to combine the changes.

As we do this, these are separate repositories that have the same history and simply add remotes for each other.

The workflow I was thinking about was as follows:

We should try to work with function branches and have only 1 commit per so that everyone can git cherry pick. Whenever you are working on a function and committing, just do git commit --amend in the branch for that function. When it is completed, I can complete.

I don’t like it, because if the function changes after selecting the cherry, the developer must remember that I am not finishing, but creating a new commit.

I would like a way to do this with a merge or reinstall.

+5
source share
6 answers

Suggested workflow:

  • A new branch for each function
  • The developer usually performs the function of a function branch
  • When merging with the main branch, do:

git merge --squash -m 'new feature' branchname

Now delete the branch!

git branch -D branchname

  • - , . - .

.

+2

, - " ", - . "white label version" .

:

  • , "",
  • - .

, ( ). , , . " ". [edit] : a) , <branch-base>..<branch-head>; b) , , , c) /rebase, (. git rebase, --onto.) [/edit]

, .

[edit2] , . : white-label-dev, prod1-dev, prod2-dev . -, , " " . ( , .)

- , . , , , . [/Edit2]

+3

, , Github .

whitelabel. , . whitelabel whitelabel, upstream. , git merge upstream/master git rebase upstream/master .

, . . cherry-pick , . , , , .

http://www.techblogistech.com/2012/07/setting-a-default-upstream-branch-in-git/

: https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo

+1

forkee, . .. .

/ forking. (, ?).

gitolite , .

0

, "" views/   git . .

  • git
  • .

1., , , , , , .

White Label;

- app_whitelabel/  <<-- clone of "app" repo on default branch
  + config/
  + controllers/
  + errors/
  + views/         <<-- nested clone of "views" repo on branch "brand1"

1 ;

- app_brand1/     <<-- clone of "app" repo on default branch
  + config/
  + controllers/
  + errors/
  + views/         <<-- nested clone of "views" repo on branch "brand1"

[n] ;

- app_brand2/      <<-- clone of "app" repo on default branch
  + config/
  + controllers/
  + errors/
  + views/         <<-- nested clone of "views" repo on branch "brand[n]"

Pros

  • , - .
  • "" "".
  • mvc - :)

  • / .
  • mvc - :)
0

, , .

.

.

, .

, , .

. , .

, , - .

, . , , - QAd, .

, .

, .

, , . , , , .

I drew a crude picture

- , - . , . , . .

And, as I said, all developers have their own working repositories and are free to make them.

0
source

More articles:


All Articles