git-workflow | 佳格研发的 git 使用规范 | Version Control System library

by DaYeSquad Shell Version: Current License: No License

X-Ray Key Features Code Snippets Community Discussions(10)Vulnerabilities Install Support

kandi X-RAY | git-workflow Summary

git-workflow is a Shell library typically used in Devops, Version Control System applications. git-workflow has no bugs, it has no vulnerabilities and it has low support. You can download it from GitHub.

佳格研发的 git 使用规范

Support

Quality

Security

License

Reuse

Support

git-workflow has a low active ecosystem.

It has 12 star(s) with 12 fork(s). There are 6 watchers for this library.

It had no major release in the last 6 months.

git-workflow has no issues reported. There are no pull requests.

It has a neutral sentiment in the developer community.

The latest version of git-workflow is current.

Quality

git-workflow has no bugs reported.

Security

git-workflow has no vulnerabilities reported, and its dependent libraries have no vulnerabilities reported.

License

git-workflow does not have a standard license declared.

Check the repository for any license declaration and review the terms closely.

Without a license, all rights are reserved, and you cannot use the library in your applications.

Reuse

git-workflow releases are not available. You will need to build from source code and install.

Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA

kandi's functional review helps you automatically verify the functionalities of the libraries and avoid rework.
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of git-workflow

Get all kandi verified functions for this library.

git-workflow Key Features

No Key Features are available at this moment for git-workflow.

git-workflow Examples and Code Snippets

No Code Snippets are available at this moment for git-workflow.

Community Discussions

Trending Discussions on git-workflow

Gitkraken error when pull with git-lfs on macOS

Cloning from master/main or cloning from fork?

Recover Missing File after `read-tree --empty` and `reset --hard`

ZSH: execute function in a script file

Git and backup local commits

Where does git merge fit in this diagram

rebase push will go to branch A or branch B

Should I merge master to a shared stable integration branch before rebase?

Undoing local merge if remote gets updated

Git and GitHub concepts: Reviewing updated pull requests locally

QUESTION

Gitkraken error when pull with git-lfs on macOS

Asked 2021-Mar-31 at 13:08

I have an error during the LFS pull with Gitkraken on macOS. I get the following error message:

Error on LFS Pull git: 'lfs' is not a git command. See 'git --help'. The most similar command is log

In the Gitkraken documentation (here) we find the following explanation:

Note: If GitKraken still cannot find Git or Git LFS, the terminal or CMD may be using a different path than the system or user path. For example, on OSX applications launched from the GUI have a different path than those launched from the terminal.

To check this, we can do the following command: which git-lfs and which git

Indeed, I get the following result:

...

ANSWER

Answered 2021-Mar-30 at 00:59

Your PATH setting needs to refer only to directories, not to files. So if the git-lfs binary is in /opt/homebrew/bin, then you'd want to do this:

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66852435

QUESTION

Cloning from master/main or cloning from fork?

Asked 2021-Mar-21 at 19:00

I am new to git/GitHub and am trying to understand and emulate the typical workflow and have run into conflicting advice.

The guidelines for the FirstContributions repository suggest that the typical workflow should be:

fork -> clone -> edit -> pull request

However, the guidelines for the another repository for beginners state the following:

Always clone from the main repository and add your fork as a remote.

Please help me understand the merits of each approach. Which one should I be using?

...

ANSWER

Answered 2021-Mar-21 at 19:00

In general you will want to have the original repository available as a remote on your local repository. Whether you clone from the main repository and then add your fork as a remote or do it the other way around doesn't really matter.

The reason you want the original repository available is so that when you make changes in the future, you can base them on the current state of the remote repository, rather than on the state of the remote repository at the time you created your fork.

If you use the official gh CLI (available from https://github.com/cli/cli/releases/), this is as simple as:

git clone
cd working_directory
gh repo fork --remote

This will (a) fork the repository on github, and then (b) configure two remotes in your local directory:

origin points to your fork, and
upstream points to the original repository

When you start working on a new pull request, first update the state of the upstream repository:

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66736251

QUESTION

Recover Missing File after `read-tree --empty` and `reset --hard`

Asked 2020-Apr-09 at 18:43

OS: Ubuntu 19.10
git: 2.20.1

I just spend a lot of time writing up some documentation. I saved the markdown file in my documentation site's project folder as: content/topics/workflow/docker/git-workflow.md

...

ANSWER

Answered 2020-Apr-09 at 18:43

I was able to locate the file thanks to this answer and the following commands:

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/61127516

QUESTION

ZSH: execute function in a script file

Asked 2019-Dec-13 at 02:41

I have a ~/scripts/git-workflow.sh file that looks like:

...

ANSWER

Answered 2019-Dec-10 at 18:45

zsh doesn't perform word-splitting on parameter expansions by default, so git and pull aren't two separate words in the desired command. While you can enable it on a particular parameter expansion, a better approach is to just use an array.

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59271173

QUESTION

Git and backup local commits

Asked 2019-Nov-12 at 23:45

I've been searching around to find out what others do in this situation but I'm having trouble finding a definitive answer.

Our current workflow is as follows (btw, we use Azure DevOps for our GIT repository):

We have a remote 'Development' branch
A dev creates a new branch from remote/Development (e.g. remote/FeatureA)
A local copy of FeatureA is created
Work is done locally and committed to the local/FeatureA branch
- As a side note, if changes are merged into remote/Development ...
  - We pull those changes into local/Development
  - Perform a rebase of local/FeatureA onto local/Development
Once local/FeatureA is done, it is pushed to remote/FeatureA
A pull request is raised to merge remote/FeatureA into remote/Development

However, any commits done locally (e.g. local/FeatureA) are not backed up in anyway and there is the potential to lose those changes if the workstation dies for whatever reason. I was thinking it might be possible to push those commits to the remote branch (remote/FeatureA) so they are always backed up in the cloud (similar to the requirements of this poster ... Git workflow and rebase vs merge questions). But it appears that doing this would cause grief in rebasing should any changes be made to remote/Development by another developer.

Does anyone have a good solution for this? That is, how can I ensure my code changes/commits are backed up while continuing to work on a Feature before it is ready to be merged into the remote/Development branch? I supposed I could look at a hardware solution ... e.g. connect a portable HDD to my workstation and have scheduled backups ... but I thought there might be a more elegant solution.

...

ANSWER

Answered 2019-Nov-12 at 23:45

You indeed can backup your feature branches to the remote repo, and it is good practice to do so.

So what happens if remote/Development is changed and you have to rebase your feature branch?

You do as usual for the local part (pulling the new changes on Development then rebasing your feature on it), and yes, at this point, the remote backup is "outdated" by the rebase. But since you're not disrupting anyone else's work (or so I guessed from your description?) on this branch, you can then push --force the result of your rebased local feature branch.

I think you slightly misunderstood the part about

"But it appears that doing this would cause grief in rebasing should any changes be made to remote/Development by another developer"

...which is true for shared stable branches like your Development here, but not for unshared (until they're eventually merged via a PR, of course) feature branches.

(Anecdotically, we happen to have a very similar workflow in the team I'm in at the moment.)

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/58828269

QUESTION

Where does git merge fit in this diagram

Asked 2019-Aug-19 at 16:32

I am learning git/github/version control and I found the diagram below really useful (source). My question is where does git merge fit into this diagram? Where would the arrow start and point to?

...

ANSWER

Answered 2019-Aug-19 at 16:32

As I commented, "rebase" here is in the context of a git pull --rebase:

fetch from the remote repository
rebase on top of the remote tracking branch which just got updated by the fetch.

A git merge would be between local repository and workspace:

local repository has the source of the merge: what you are merging from,
workspace is your working tree, where you have checked out your current working branch: it is what you want to merge to.

You need a workspace in order to resolve possible merge conflicts.

While Schwern's answer is technically correct, it is confusing.

yes, there are some edge cases (as seen here or there) where you could merge without involving a working tree.
but a working tree is (almost always) involved when merging

The intent of the diagram is to show you where to look after a git command execution.

From "True Merge"

A merged version reconciling the changes from all branches to be merged is committed, and your HEAD, index, and working tree are updated to it.
It is possible to have modifications in the working tree as long as they do not overlap; the update will preserve them.

If you were to do a git merge in a bare repository (no working tree), you would get:

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/57547095

QUESTION

rebase push will go to branch A or branch B

Asked 2019-May-23 at 19:56

update1:

right now I am facing conflicts when I do rebase. after I modify the code. Can you let me know what command to execute to remove the conflicts. Providing the status below

...

ANSWER

Answered 2019-May-18 at 06:40

From the branch A I created a new local branch B.

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56193134

QUESTION

Should I merge master to a shared stable integration branch before rebase?

Asked 2019-Feb-13 at 06:03

Our team seems to be running into this problem over and over again. When we start on a project we create an integration branch from the master and call it stable. Now, each individual developer branches out from stable and once they are done, they create a pull request to the stable and do a squash and merge before closing it.

The problem happens when we want to merge stable back to master. We usually rebase on top of master but this leads to many conflicts since 2 months down the line master has a lot more commits than when we branched from.

I read some posts like - Git Workflows: Rebasing Published/Shared Branches and some of them seem to advocate merging master to stable from time to time before doing the final rebase of stable on top of master at the time of creating a pull request and then there was one What is the right git workflow with shared feature branches? which said that back merge from master to stable is a bad idea.

My question is - Is merging master to stable from time-to-time the ideal solution here to prevent the rebase conflict hell which we go through every time or are there any better solutions out there? If this was already answered please let me know.

We can't merge stable to master sooner because master requires the latest and greatest end-to-end functional production ready code.

...

ANSWER

Answered 2019-Feb-13 at 06:03

Is merging master to stable from time-to-time the ideal solution here to prevent the rebase conflict hell which we go through every time or are there any better solutions out there?

In your particular workflow, where master is actively modified while stable is updated... yes, even though it is not a best practice.

Ideally, master should not evolve much while your integration branch (stable) is updated.
An example of such workflow: gitworkflow, which uses a "next" branch as integration, but will then remerge the feature branch themselves directly to master (which has not change much since the last release)

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54661471

QUESTION

Undoing local merge if remote gets updated

Asked 2018-Oct-01 at 12:27

I have the following git workflow:

...

ANSWER

Answered 2018-Oct-01 at 11:45

You've got two general choices.

The first, and one I normally adopt, is to rebase your version of the develop on top of the remote version of develop. If there are merge conflicts, you can resolve them as you go (i.e. rebase --continue when done).

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52586177

QUESTION

Git and GitHub concepts: Reviewing updated pull requests locally

Asked 2018-Apr-11 at 06:46

I follow the generic OSS structure:

the OSS' remote repository hosted on GitHub
a fork of the OSS remote repository to my own remote repository
a clone of the fork on my remote repository to create a local repository

Thus, a contributor would create a new branch locally, push the changes to his/her remote repository, and then open a pull request to the OSS' remote repository.

This has been working well. However, the main issue comes when I try to review another contributor's pull request by fiddling with it locally.

So I have fetched a pull request made to the OSS' remote repository using this command:

git fetch upstream pull//head:

followed by git checkout

and it was successful. I played around with the PR, and reviewed it on GitHub. Then, the contributor updated the PR by pushing new commits to their branch (on their remote repo), which was automatically reflected in the PR.

Now, I want to be able to get the updates locally so that I can try the changes again. I understand that my copy of the PR branch does not track the remote branch by default, so I tried to set it to track the PR:

git branch --set-upstream upstream/pull//head:

like how I have done when I first fetched the branch. However, I got the response that

error: the requested upstream branch 'pull//head:' does not exist

I tried again with:

git branch --set-upstream-to upstream/pull//head:

which also failed with the same error.

Then, I thought, is it because a PR is like a 'reflection' of the branch on someone's remote repository, so if I want to track an upstream branch I should track from the person's remote repository?

So I added the contributors' remote repository as a remote, and tried again:

git branch --set-upstream-to

and I still faced the same error.

I did some Googling, and I found this, but I do not want to get all the pull requests. I also found links like this one but nope, not the help that I need there.

Can anyone point out what is wrong with the way that I am doing things now? Thanks!

Edit: Is there an easier way to do things aside from what has been proposed by Marina Liu - MSFT below?

...

ANSWER

Answered 2018-Apr-11 at 06:38

The problem—or at least the first one—here is that you cannot use an upstream to refer to a GitHub pull request reference.

In Git, an upstream on a branch consists of two parts:

The name of a remote, such as origin
The name of a branch on that remote, such as master

Git puts these two together to get refs/heads/master—this is the name on the remote—then runs this string through the fetch setting(s) for the remote. The standard fetch setting for the remote named origin is +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*, so if the upstream is currently set to the pair <origin, master>, the name that Git looks up in your own repository is refs/remotes/origin/master, which is your remote-tracking name for their master.

Note the assumption in here that the name on the remote begins with refs/heads/.

The actual name of a pull reference on GitHub begins with refs/pull/, not refs/heads/, so that the full name of the commit you want for pull request #123 is refs/pull/123/head. There is no way to spell this that starts with refs/heads/ because this is not a branch name.

Now, you can—as suggested in your first link—add an extra fetch setting:

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49767697

Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network

Vulnerabilities

No vulnerabilities reported

Install git-workflow

You can download it from GitHub.

Support

For any new features, suggestions and bugs create an issue on GitHub. If you have any questions check and ask questions on community page Stack Overflow .

Find more information at: