![]() Then, they file a pull request with the main repository, which lets the project maintainer know that an update is ready to be integrated. When they're ready to publish a local commit, they push the commit to their own public repository-not the official one. This serves as their private development environment, just like in the other workflows. After they have created their server-side copy, the developer performs a git clone to get a copy of it onto their local machine. This new copy serves as their personal public repository-no other developers are allowed to push to it, but they can pull changes from it (we’ll see why this is important in a moment). Instead, they fork the official repository to create a copy of it on the server. ![]() But when a new developer wants to start working on the project, they do not directly clone the official repository. This also makes it an ideal workflow for open source projects.Īs in the other Git workflows, the Forking Workflow begins with an official public repository stored on a server. The result is a distributed workflow that provides a flexible way for large, organic teams (including untrusted third-parties) to collaborate securely. This means that complete feature branches will be purposed for merge into the original project maintainer's repository. The Forking Workflow typically follows a branching model based on the Gitflow Workflow. This allows the maintainer to accept commits from any developer without giving them write access to the official codebase. Developers push to their own server-side repositories, and only the project maintainer can push to the official repository. The main advantage of the Forking Workflow is that contributions can be integrated without the need for everybody to push to a single central repository. The Forking Workflow is most often seen in public open source projects. ![]() This means that each contributor has not one, but two Git repositories: a private local one and a public server-side one. Instead of using a single server-side repository to act as the “central” codebase, it gives every developer their own server-side repository. The last thing to do is delete my tmp branches.The Forking Workflow is fundamentally different than other popular Git workflows. To finish things up, I’ll just push my changes and then rebase my feature branch which will reorder my commits to match the master branch and place my feature commits as the last three commits in the log. Now in the log, I can see the history is in the correct order, just how I wanted it. Next, I merge my tmp branch into the master branch. After deleting the commits, I just save and quit my editor. This will give me the history I want with the 4th commit coming right after the last commit on the master branch. This loads the commits into my editor and from here I just delete the 3 commits that I didn’t want on my master branch. For simplicity in the commands here, we’ll just use SHA-MASTER in place of the actual SHA1 hash. I want to rebase everything back to the last commit on the master branch. I’m going to rebase this branch using interactive mode. This will give me the history that I want, but will include the 3 commits I don’t want. Now I’m going to merge the two tmp branches so that I have a history that contains all of my commits. I’ll do the same for master so that I can perform my merging and rebasing in isolation from the master branch. Next, I’ll create a temporary feature branch that I’ll use later on to bring over the commit that I want. ![]() Then I’ll checkout my feature branch and make sure it’s completely up to date with the master branch. In the current scenario, the feature branch is 4 commits ahead of the master and the branch that I want to bring over is just the most recent.įirst things first, I need to ensure my master branch is up to date. The branches I’ll be working with are master and feature. This may not be the simplest approach, but it worked for me and wanted to share. After some digging and a little trial and error, I finally figured it out. Git rocks at manipulating branches and I knew this, but I wasn’t sure how to just move one commit to the master branch. Suddenly you realize that you need to merge just the fix you made, but don’t want to merge the commits from the previous feature your working on. So, you jump right in and fix the issue and then you realize you forgot to start a new git feature branch. You’re right in the middle of developing a feature when a request comes up to fix a different completely unrelated problem. Perhaps you’ve made the same mistake I have.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |