paulhtremblay
commented
4 years ago I think you want to make the branch off master, work on it, push it to dev, test, then push the new branch to master. We have this problem at work.
Say you work on a new branch called templating. I work on a new branch called new_graph. My graph is ready and I push to dev. Your templates are only half ready. You push to dev. If we now merge dev to master, we get broken code because your templates are not ready. If we don't push, I have to wait for you.
In a web environment, we should have a staging env. At work we cannot have staging for data because data is so big and the cost.
I think we should make many branches off master. That is standard. If you do code reviews, the process flows.
On Tue, May 19, 2020, 1:35 PM Brian Tremblay notifications@github.com wrote:
I think part of the problem with old templates -- e.g. issue #22 https://github.com/paulhtremblay/covid19/issues/22 -- is having multiple branches with no clear work flow, hence my email. I guess I should have talked about that here instead of email. I think we need a master branch for production, and a dev branch for development. We have a live site and test site, so each can be deployed. And contributors like me can create branches off dev to tackle issues one at a time, which you can then merge into dev after code review. When we're happy with dev, we merge to production. Rinse lather repeat.
The way it is set up, I don't know where to make new changes. When I look at master, it's old material. At least, I think it is. Certainly I don't see site.css, which was fixed some time ago. Having a clear dev branch with separate branches would allow me to immediately work on new issues without waiting for a merge to master of my last commits. Maybe it's my inexperience with collaborative projects that leaves me confused.
My 2 cents.
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/paulhtremblay/covid19/issues/25, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIZZ6POX6LL3QZPV4POJR3RSLUP5ANCNFSM4NFKSLZQ .
I think part of the problem with old templates -- e.g. issue #22 -- is having multiple branches with no clear work flow, hence my email. I guess I should have talked about that here instead of email. I think we need a master branch for production, and a dev branch for development. We have a live site and test site, so each can be deployed. And contributors like me can create branches off dev to tackle issues one at a time, which you can then merge into dev after code review. When we're happy with dev, we merge to production. Rinse lather repeat.
The way it is set up, I don't know where to make new changes. When I look at master, it's old material. At least, I think it is. Certainly I don't see site.css, which was fixed some time ago. Having a clear dev branch with separate branches would allow me to immediately work on new issues without waiting for a merge to master of my last commits. Maybe it's my inexperience with collaborative projects that leaves me confused.
My 2 cents.