19 April 2014

The Ruby Reflector



  Source Favicon
By Mislav of Mislav's blog 1 year ago.

…conflicts can be easier to deal with during merge than the more numerous, smaller conflicts during rebase.

Record a merge commit when a feature lands into master

After working on a feature/topic branch, merge it in master like so: git merge --no-ff feature

The --no-ff flag ensures there will always be a merge commit , even when technically not necessary. Merge commits are useful because they convey the following information:

where do changes come from (in this case: the "feature" …

mislav.uniqpath.com Read
  Source Favicon
By Andrew Bloomgarden of New Relic over 1 year ago.

…wide-ranging refactoring project. Other developers still need to be able to do their work, so that daily rebase may be an exercise in frustration as they add new code that needs to be fixed.

Branching by Abstraction

To avoid this problem, Julian Giuca and I have branched by abstraction . At its simplest, branching by abstraction is a five step process:

1. Introduce a flag controlling whether the old or new implementation should be used.

2. Add the new implementation …

newrelic.com Read
  Source Favicon
On The Pug Automatic almost 2 years ago.

When you switch branches or rebase, Guard may detect changed files and cause their tests to run.

If you save one file while another test is running, it's queued up. This means that a series of small tweaks can cause a bunch of tests to run, whether you want them to or not.

Sometimes, Guard gets the idea that you probably want to run all the tests, when you really don't.

Also, sometimes Guard's file detection gets choked up for whatever reason and won't run tests …

henrik.nyh.se Read
  Source Favicon
On KernowSoul almost 2 years ago.

Rebase to the rescue

When running git pull we need to rebase, and so to the first way to avoid merge commits...

git pull --rebase What's happening here? Git will rewind (undo) all of your local commits, pull down the remote commits then replay your local commits on top of the newly pulled remote commits. If any conflicts arise that git can't handle you'll be given the opportunity to manually merge the commits then simply run git rebase --continue to carry on replaying your …

kernowsoul.com Read
  Source Favicon
By Assaf of Labnotes over 2 years ago.

Rebase is your friend Sandofsky on the preferred Git workflow and keeping history linear:

Treat public history as immutable, atomic, and easy to follow. Treat private history as disposable and malleable.

Always be measuring How Esty uses StatsD to collect metrics on just about everything.

Measuring some more John Nunemaker on counting and MongoDB part I and part II .

The times be changing Deploying: Then & Now .

Of course …

blog.labnotes.org Read
  Source Favicon
By Joshua Timberman of Chef Blog almost 3 years ago.

Rebase the "future" branch with current master.

Tag repository with "future-freeze" to reflect the point in time where the cookbooks are now.

Create a "future-freeze" branch at this same point in time. This is where users who use the GitHub repository as a whole repository, or sub-module should be updated. As the name implies, this will be frozen, and we won't actively maintain it.

Merge the current working branch, "future" into master. This …

opscode.com Read
  Source Favicon
By Gabe da Silveira of Darwinweb almost 4 years ago.

Rebase topic branches just before merging and deleting them (and let other people know the branch is officially dead so they don't keep committing to their local copy)

Why go through the trouble of all this rebasing? Won't we be losing history? Well yes, rebase vs merge is always a tradeoff. For a long time I thought it was basically a wash: readability in exchange for precise history. However as I came to understand the tradeoffs things kept shifting towards rebase.

Readability …

darwinweb.net Read