Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Search - "auto commits"
-
I append text from http://whatthecommit.com/index.txt to my commits automatically every time. So today I made the most useless commit and they added the most appropriate message in the brackets:
Updated datastructure of sorts (should work I guess...) -
Question about managing git branches.
For releases, we branch develop (the main branch) into a release.version branch in which we bump the version and do any last minute bug fixes for issues found in testing.
After the release we need it back into the main branch as well as master.
But also we keep the branch as well in case we need it such as for a hotfix release.
Is keeping it right though?
General issue on my team I feel is nobody deletes their feature branches after they are done and merged into the main branch. I think there is a feature in most Repos where it can auto delete these branches when a PR is merged.
And well branches themselves (at least the HEAD) are sort of just bookmarks. All commits can be accessed by their hash and basically is a full snapshot of all the commits that upto that point that it was based off of?
So you could just tag the last commit in the release branch with release.version and delete the branch itself? And that I think is the correct, normal way?
Not sure how to explain this to my boss or team as they aren't big on technical details...9