- #Do you have to comit files after using xformat Patch#
- #Do you have to comit files after using xformat code#
- #Do you have to comit files after using xformat license#
- #Do you have to comit files after using xformat free#
Next step is to create a fork of the particular Savara repository or repositories that you wish to work on. NOTE: The best practice for working with Git is for all contributors (both committers and non-committers) is to create a fork of the savara, and then work on their fork repository.
#Do you have to comit files after using xformat license#
You should also setup a account, and sign the Contributor License Agreement (CLA), if you intend to submit contributions - otherwise we will not be able to accept them.
#Do you have to comit files after using xformat free#
If you don't already have a github account, then it is free to set up an account, and provides benefits when handling pull requests, to enable the contribution to be reviewed. This section is only intended to provide a quick reference for some of the common operations that will be required when using git with the development workflow. QUESTION: What is the best approach to apply the change to multiple branches? Would rebasing on each branch work best? Once successfully merged, then the bugfix branch should be deleted. Once a bug has been fixed, suitable tests provided and existing tests run to ensure no regression, the changes should be merged into the master branch as well as any other release branches that also require the fix. This provides a concrete link to the jira issue describing the bug, and a short descriptive name to help as a quick reference. The name of the branch should follow the convention, e.g. 2.0.xīugs should be fixed in their own branch. The naming convention for these branches are: release- version, where version is defined by. In this case, we will create a release branch. The naming convention for these tags are: version, which is like 2.0.0.Final.įor some important releases, we may want to have branches for these, like we have have SAVARA-2.0.x branch, where we will have subsequent maintenance releases, while we will make our master branch as 2.1.x. Once the master branch has reached a feature complete state, and been verified with tests, we will create a tag for this specific version. Once successfully merged, then the feature branch should be deleted. Once a feature has been developed, it MUST only be merged into the master branch.
This provides a concrete link to the jira issue describing the feature. bugfixes and features are all available in a complete form).įeatures should be developed in their own branch. This means that the 'master' branch represents the latest snapshot of project development, but is still in a consistent state (i.e.
#Do you have to comit files after using xformat code#
As outlined in the subsequent sections, changes to the code should be performed in separate feature or bugfix branches, and then merged into 'master', However one key difference between the git 'master' branch, and a svn 'trunk', is that the 'master' branch should not be used for direct commits. So it makes sense for larger projects to also continue this convention. The reason being that this is the default branch when initially creating a git repository, and therefore used by small projects. Organisation of the Repository Current Development in MasterĪs discussed in a few of the comments on the artlcle, it seems more natural for the 'master' branch to be considered equivalent to trunk, and therefore represent the main area for current development. However we are borrowing ideas from this article, as well as some content outlined in the development workflow article for the ModeShape project.Īs we learn more from practical use of this workflow, we may document other variations here. So release branches are retained, and not deleted as in the article. Therefore currently the approach outlined below is based on the standard trunk and separate release branches approach that is used with subversion. Using the approach outlined in this article would cause the 'master' branch to move backwards and forwards between the tagged/released versions associated with different released versions.
#Do you have to comit files after using xformat Patch#
We release a 1.2.CR1, tagged in the master branch, but then find there is a problem in version 1.1 which requires a patch release. For example, if we have version 1.1 release, and are working on release 1.2 in trunk (or develop branch in the article). In an environment where it is necessary to maintain more than one release, then the approach of merging all changes into a single branch (master in this article) does not work. However it has one issue, which we have not yet been able to find a solution for. Initially we considered using the workflow outlined in this article: (the diagram is also available in the attached file). The SAVARA GIT repositories are hosted under a github organisation:
0 kommentar(er)
