Git branching model For efficient development Lemİ Orhan ERGİN Principal software engineer @ Sony This document is prepared for the technical talk on 14th of november, 2012 at Sony
Whyg itIs good ? Cheap Local Branching Everything is Local Git is Fast Git is Small The Staging Area Distributed Any Workflow Changed the rules GitHub 2,538,360 people 4,315,025 repositories Easy to Learn Raised $100 mil ion on July'12 Git is the new standard Huge community
branch concepts separate line of work Public branch A public branch is one that more than one person pulls from Topical (feature) branch private branch that you alone are using, and will not exposed in the public repository tracking branch local branch that knows where its remote is, and that can push to and pull from that remote
merging and branching in git git has changed the way developers think of merging and branching with Git, merging and branching are extremely cheap and simple, and they are considered one of the core parts of your daily workflow
workflow Version control workflow handles features, bugs and hot fixes on your codebase aimed to run on multiple environments while keeping a clean and sane history
git For designingworkflows It is really “a tool for designing VCS workflows” rather than a Version Control System itself. Or, as Linus would say, “git is just a stupid content tracker”
Repository management in git: Decentralized but centralized
Main branches We consider origin/production to be the main branch where the source code of HEAD always reflects a production-ready state. We consider origin/Master to be the main branch where the source code of HEAD always reflects a state with the latest delivered development changes for the next release. Some would call this the “integration branch”. This is where any automatic nightly builds are built from.
MoreMain branches We could also consider origin/staging to be the main branch where the source code of HEAD always reflects a state with latest code changes and bug fixes for the staging environment. With this logic, you can define persistent branches for each environment. That's up your needs.
release each time when changes are merged back into production, this is a new production release by definition
supporting branches Unlike the main branches, these branches always have a limited life time, since they will be removed eventually. Each of these branches have a specific purpose and are bound to strict rules as to which branches may be their originating branch and which branches must be their merge targets. Feature branches hotFix branches Release branches
next-r Feature 1 Feature 2 Feature 3 Master elease 2 1 Feature 2 is completed and ent m merged back t0 master m Feature 3 is created from Pull all the updates from 1 master. feature 1 does not exist master frequently in the new branch Pull the latest updates 3 1 then resolve conflicts then merge back to master It's time to complete Feature 1 is completed and m merged back t0 master Feature 3 merges back with 3 master and gets feature 1 3 m Pulls updates frequently 3 Feature developm 3 Feature 3 is completed and m merged back t0 master
Master Release Production next-release Features are merged with master m ent m All features are ready m It's time to release Start of the r anagem release branch r Only fixes! m r Bug fixes are continuously merged m back into master Release m r m Merge release branch Release is completed. p with production branch After the merge, and get a new tag delete release branch
Master Hot-Fix Production next-release m m p Hotfix branch is created from production m h Hotfix is merged with p production branch. Get a Hot fixes are merged new tag for the hot fix. Release is completed. back to master too After the merge, Hot-fixes in production m delete hotfix branch
master production odel s in branching m All flow Original graph is From “a successful git branching model” by Vincent Driessen
It's time to implement but how?
Rebase vs merge And The difference ın keeping the history (1) Merging brings two lines of development together while preserving the ancestry of each commit history. In contrast, rebasing unifies the lines of development by re-writing changes from the source branch so that they appear as children of the destination branch – effectively pretending that those commits were written on top of the destination branch all along. rebase requires the commits on the source branch to be re-written, which changes their content and their SHAs
Rebase vs merge And The difference ın keeping the history (2) Merging is better you Only have one (or few thrusted) committer and You don't care much about reading your history. rebasing makes you sure that your commits go on top of the "public" branch
mergePROS AND CONS PROS 1 Simple to use and understand. 2 The commits on the source branch remain separate from other branch commits, provided you don’t perform a fast-forward merge. (this separation can be useful in the case of feature branches, where you might want to take a feature and merge it into another branch later) 3 Existing commits on the source branch are unchanged and remain valid; it doesn’t matter if they’ve been shared with others. CONS 1 If the need to merge arises simply because multiple people are working on the same branch in parallel, the merges don’t serve any useful historic purpose and create clutter.
REBASEPROS AND CONS PROS 1 Simplifies your history. 2 Is the most intuitive and clutter-free way to combine commits from multiple developers in a shared branch CONS 1 Slightly more complex, especially under conflict conditions. (each commit is rebased in order, and a conflict will interrupt the process of rebasing multiple commits.) 2 Rewriting of history has ramifications if you’ve previously pushed those commits elsewhere. (you may push commits you may want to rebase later (as a backup) but only if it’s to a remote branch that only you use. If anyone else checks out that branch and you later rebase it, it’s going to get very confusing.)
Golden Rule Of rebasing Never ever rebase a branch that you pushed, or that you pulled from another person
Rebase or merge Use which strategy when Push: 1 Don't do your work on the public branch, use feature branches 2 When multiple developers work on a shared branch, push & rebase your outgoing commits to keep history cleaner 3 To re-integrate a completed feature branch, use merge (and opt-out of fast-forward commits in Git) pull: 1 To bring a feature branch up to date with its base branch, Prefer rebasing your feature branch onto the latest base branch if You haven’t pushed this branch anywhere yet, or you know for sure that other people will not have checked out your feature branch 2 Otherwise, merge the latest base changes into your feature branch
Feature development 1 Pull to update your local master 2 Check out a feature branch from master 3 Do work in your feature branch, committing early and often 4 Rebase frequently to incorporate upstream changes 5 Interactive rebase (squash) your commits 6 Merge your changes with master 7 Push your changes to the upstream
1 Pull to update your local master git checkout master git pull origin master This should never create a merge commit because we are never working directly in master. Whenever you perform a pull, merge or rebase, make sure that you run tests directly afterwards.
2 Check out a feature branch from master git checkout -b feature-1185-add-commenting check out a feature branch named with the story id and a short, descriptive title. The id allows us to easily track this branch back to the story that spawned it. The title is there to give us humans a little hint as to what’s in it.
Pull = fetch + merge You may use rebase instead of merge with the pull tıp “git pull --rebase <remote branch> <local branch>” “git config branch.autosetuprebase always” for pull with rebase by default 3 Do work in your feature branch, committing early and often 4 Rebase frequently to incorporate upstream changes git fetch origin master git rebase origin/master Rebase against the upstream frequently to prevent your branch from diverging significantly. Alternative: git checkout master git pull git checkout feature-1185-add-commenting git merge master This is often done by checking master out and pulling, but this method requires extra steps as above
5 Interactive rebase (squash) your commits We want the rebase to affect only the commits we’ve made to this branch, not the commits that exist on the upstream. To ensure that we only deal with the “local” commits git rebase -i origin/master Git will display an editor window with a list of the commits to be modified pick 3dcd585 Adding Comment model, migrations, spec pick 9f5c362 Adding Comment controller, helper, spec pick dcd4813 Adding Comment relationship with Post Now we tell git what we to do. Change these lines. pick 3dcd585 Adding Comment model, migrations, spec squash 9f5c362 Adding Comment controller, helper, spec squash dcd4813 Adding Comment relationship with Post Save and close the file. This will squash these commits together into one commit and present us with a new editor window where we can give the new commit a message.
6 Merge your changes with master git checkout master git merge feature-1185-add-commenting merge your changes back into master
7 Push your changes to the upstream git push origin master push your changes to the upstream
Bug fixes Same flow as feature development 1 Prefix the branch name with “bug” to help you keep track of them 2 Do work in your bugfix branch, committing early and often 3 Rebase frequently against the upstream 4 use an interactive rebase to squash all the commits together With a bugfix, squash the commits down into one and exactly one commit that completely represents that bugfix. Half of a bugfix is useless!