feature-branch

“ feature branches ” is when each feature is developed in its own branch and only merged into the main line when it has been tested and is ready to ship. This allows the product owner to choose the features that go into a given shipment and to “park” feature that are part written if more important work comes in (e.g. a customer phones up the MD to complain). “ refactoring ” is transforming the code to improve its design so as to reduce to cost of change. Without doing this continually you tend to get uglier code bases which is more difficult to write tests for. In real life there are always

I'm following the the workflow described here , as I found many references pointing to this page as a good workflow. As mentioned in the article, "feature" branches are shared between developers, but do not go to the central repository. Let's say a developer "A" starts a new feature branch with git checkout -b newfeature develop . Now let's say that developer "B" needs also to work on this feature. This is my problem. What I did: developer "B" adds developer A's machine as a remote developer "B" runs git branch remoteA/newfeature developer "B" works on this branch, commit his work and pushes

I am researching switching from starteam to git. Currently, in starteam, we use "floating views" with special names. These floating views basically work like aliases. Therefore, we can specify a specific alias to checkout from and we'll get the branch that we're currently model testing. How would this be done in git? This is basically how our branches are organized: These are all branches master (stable view) | - Branch 2012.05.01 | | - Project 1 | | - Project 2 | | - model [floating view / alias to Branch 2012.05.01] | | - Branch 2012.07.11 (these would also have various child views for

What are "Feature Toggles" and "Feature Branches" and what's the difference between them? What are the pros and cons? Why is one better than the other? I found some articles on Google regarding this, and I tend to be in the "Feature Toggles" camp, but I'm not convinced that "Feature Toggles" is the better choice in all the cases. Electrawn Feature toggles are methodology used in a Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) chain (Agile/Kanban project methodology). Basically, you send new features to production in a disabled state, then in an admin console turn the feature on (or off if

I have two (private) feature branches that I'm working on. a -- b -- c <-- Master \ \ \ d -- e <-- Branch1 \ f -- g <-- Branch2 After working on these branches a little while I've discovered that I need the changes from Branch2 in Branch1. I'd like to rebase the changes in Branch2 onto Branch1. I'd like to end up with the following: a -- b -- c <-- Master \ d -- e -- f -- g <-- Branch1 I'm pretty sure I need to rebase the second branch onto the first, but I'm not entirely sure about the correct syntax and which branch I should have checked out. Will this command produce the desired result?

Lets say we have the following situation in git: A created repository: mkdir GitTest2 cd GitTest2 git init Some modifications in the master take place and get committed. echo "On Master" > file git commit -a -m "Initial commit" Feature1 branched off master and some work is done: git branch feature1 git checkout feature1 echo "Feature1" > featureFile git commit -a -m "Commit for feature1" Meanwhile, a bug is discovered in the master-code and a hotfix-branch is established git checkout master git branch hotfix1 git checkout hotfix1 The bug is fixed in the hotfix branch and merged back into the