Workflow

[xobust]

Lets discuss our workflow on this project

[willwull]

We should work on separate branches right? What kind of branches should we have?

We should also review each others' code before merging with master.

[xobust]

The master branch should only be used for stable code, and there should be some kind of checks before we can merge into the master branch.

[xobust]

All work should be done in a work branch or separate feature branches

[willwull]

What name conventions should we use? @xobust @iRobsc I'm thinking maybe something like:

• feature/{name} for new features
• fix/{name} for fixing bugfixes
• update/{name} when updating or refactoring a piece of code

In the above, {name} should be 2 or 3 words that describes the work.

[willwull]

Should we indicate whether the branch relates to the website or the game in someway? Like

• web/feature/{name}
• game/feature/{name}

[xobust]

I'm not sure if we should separate the web part and the game part

[iRobsc]

The commits should always follow this style: http://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/

[willwull]

@macaullyjames I'm totally confused about branches, do you have any suggestions for naming them?

[macaullyjames]

Please, I have an opinion for everything. There's a "standard" branching model called "git flow" that you can read about here. I would use a stripped down version of that:

• Only one long running branch, master
• Whenever you start a chunk of work, create a new branch and commit to that branch
• When you're done, send a PR from that branch to master
• Someone else reviews your code and merges into master
• Once merged, the branch is deleted

Small, short lived branches like this are called feature branches. The name isn't all that important, just call them something descriptive :)

[macaullyjames]

I'd recommend you formalise whatever you decide here in a CONTRIBUTING.md file in the root of the repo 👌

[willwull]

Working on that right now!