Git Reflow - Hackdot

Re:Git Reflow by sergiosgc on Thursday May 19, 2016 @02:48PM (#11732654)

I get close to the milestone-ish commit by opening feature branches and then merging with no fast forward. All commits in the main branch are merges, and all of those are features. The feature incremental commits go in the branch.

It's ok, I'd just like to be able to apply this structure to stuff like bisect or blame.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Git Reflow by bennofs on Thursday May 19, 2016 @03:08PM (#11732827)

Doesn't `git blame --first-parent` work for that? From my quick tests, it seems like it shows the merge commit if you have such a structure (`--first-parent` also works for `git log` etc)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Git Reflow by juped on Thursday May 19, 2016 @03:48PM (#11733174)

Totally does (though your maintainer has to care about first-parentage order, which they should, and which should be enforced by the software but isn't - see Junio's blogpost "fun with non-fast-forward", or "fun with --first-parent" for more basic info)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Git Reflow by gsylvie on Thursday May 19, 2016 @08:48PM (#11734949)

And this: http://bit-booster.blogspot.ca/2016/02/no-foxtrots-allowed.h...

(p.s. your old comment on "git branching models" that starts "Not another one. All good git workflows are different..." was hilarious/awesome - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11193048.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Git Reflow by juped on Thursday May 19, 2016 @10:26PM (#11735230)

Thanks. Git superstitions bug me a lot because it shouldn't have to be this way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Git Reflow by sergiosgc on Thursday May 19, 2016 @09:05PM (#11735008)

Thanks! It does. Learning something everyday.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Git Reflow by pcl on Thursday May 19, 2016 @02:51PM (#11732678)

Yeah exactly -- if git knew about a milestone point, then "git bisect" could tie into it. That in and of itself would be fantastic.

[ Parent | on HN ]