News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A simple git branching model by crististm on Friday September 27, 2013 @08:57AM (#6456716)
Rebasing on a public branch is a big no-no. But rebasing on your private branch helps you catch merge problems early on.

Except for the "merge --no-ff" I'm using exactly this model and I think it is great. It can't get any more simple than that and still have a working master.

Regarding the "straight line, clean" history, I've found that most people think that a straight line is "the" history to have. I have no idea what to tell them.

Re:A simple git branching model by crististm on Friday September 27, 2013 @09:04AM (#6456752)
O yes, one more thing: before merging back to master I squash the crap out of it's existence. It was invaluable once I've found out how to do it.

I've learned about squashing here (the specific page is dead now): http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/CustodianGitTrees

Re:A simple git branching model by unfletch on Friday September 27, 2013 @09:44AM (#6456944)
Re:A simple git branching model by tootie on Friday September 27, 2013 @09:08AM (#6456778)
If it's a feature branch, doesn't that strongly imply that more than one developer might need to commit to it?
Re:A simple git branching model by crististm on Friday September 27, 2013 @09:26AM (#6456852)
I don't think a feature branch implies collaboration.

Even if more than one developer is involved, the model doesn't change: "master and feature" branches become "feature and developer-private-feature". The developer still relies on a (partial) working feature branch, and his contribution still has to be self-contained.

But since you have more developers you will have an out of band sync communication between them.

Re:A simple git branching model by reledi on Friday September 27, 2013 @09:24AM (#6456845)
> rebasing on your private branch

Which I assume means it's only you working on it. Not all topic branches have multiple committers.