My Git Workflow

http://gweezlebur.com/2009/01/19/my-git-workflow.html

by PStamatiou • 18 years ago

142 25 18 years ago

arockwell2• 18 years ago

That was worth reading to find out that I could rename origin to github. For some reason I find the word origin really confusing.

There's a couple of other good tidbits in there if you're still a git neophyte like myself.

lbrandy• 18 years ago

For example, this bit:

# git stash (all my changes are saved away, and I have a clean tree)

# Fix the bug

# git commit -a -m "bugfix"

# git stash pop (changes are back)

This is the type of stuff that make SVN people "get it".

llimllib• 18 years ago

I only do that if the "bugfix" is miniscule; I've forgotten stashes, and had severely painful efforts to merge them back in. Now I only stash for a very brief period of time.

Otherwise, I use a new topic branch instead of stashing. Branching takes so little effort.

globalrev• 18 years ago

I didn't catch how, could you explain?

arockwell2• 18 years ago

Rename 'origin' to 'github' in .git/config. This is from the 'ENLIGHTENMENT' section in the article.

almost• 18 years ago

It's really useful to see articles like this. With something like git it's not good enough to just know how it works and how to use the commands. The real power seems to come in learning the new working processes that let you take advantage of its power.

I say this as someone who's just beginning to see the amazing possibilities with quick branching. I've started working on all new features in their own branches and it's really making my life easier. I used to do a limited form of that in Darcs, but I just ended up with so many directories it got unworkable. With Git it's all neatly tucked away and I have Emacs and my shell set to always display the branch I'm working in so I never (ok, almost never) get confused.

projectileboy• 18 years ago

Agreed. I also agree with the author that Git feels weird if you're used to a centralized VCS (e.g., Subversion). The fact that Git is respectful (for lack of a better word) of your local file system leads to behavior that actually makes perfect sense, but is nonetheless surprising coming from Subversion (as a concrete example, the first time I created some new files and then ran git reset --hard, I was surprised to see that my new files were still there (because I hadn't yet added them)).

It's like the old saying that anyone can learn Lisp in a day, but it'll take three days if you already know C. Anyone can learn Git in a day, but it'll take three if you already know SVN.

lnguyen4• 18 years ago

For anyone who wants to know more about branching and workflow processes, I'd recommend checking out the book Software Configuration Management Strategies and Rational ClearCase by Brian White.

Yes, I know it's a book on a commercial vcs and doesn't directly have anything to do with Git. But ClearCase with UCM has an equally powerful branching capability and in some ways is easier to use and manage (from a developer perspective). And there's probably at least 10 years of development and actual large-scale use behind it. It's good stuff, or at least the theory and workflows (just tune out the CC implementation parts).

FYI, my background was as a consultant in enterprise version control dealing with a number of different products: PVCS, Dimensions, Harvest, Starteam and ClearCase. All centralized and all working in completely different ways. I'd spent over three years on ClearCase architecting, implementing and managing a large-scale deployment before picking up Git.

wheels• 18 years ago

I have to say I was hoping to see a little more magic in there. I've only been using Git for two weeks, feel like I still don't have my head completely around it, and the only thing covered I didn't know about was "stash".

ivey3• 18 years ago

Here's some magic, then. Say you've got a bunch of commits that you haven't pushed yet, and you don't like the way you did them. You worked on one thing for a while, fixed something else, worked on another thing, went back to the first thing: it's a mess.

"git rebase --interactive HEAD~10" will bring up a $EDITOR window with the last 10 commits listed. You can rearrange them, squash them into each other, delete some entirely. Save the file, and git will happily rewrite history for you.

See this blog post for a little more detail: http://blog.madism.org/index.php/2007/09/09/138-git-awsome-n...

jmtulloss• 18 years ago

Dude, that's awesome. You made my day.

meqif• 18 years ago

If someone else is lazy like me, you can put the following in your ~/.gitconfig

  [alias]
      magic = rebase -i HEAD~10

Then you can just use 'git magic' instead of writing the full command.

MartinMond• 18 years ago

Be careful not to rewrite history you have already pushed.

I always use

  git rebase --interactive origin/master

That only shows me commits that are local.

nikz• 18 years ago

What is the big deal about keeping a clean history?

It's always seemed so much effort than it's worth.

Besides, isn't it better to keep a history of what actually happened? Something about being doomed to repeat it comes to mind...

tlrobinson• 18 years ago

Nice summary. When switching from Subversion I exclusively did his first workflow, which is essentially treating git like svn ("it's like subversion but you have to commit twice").

Recently I've been transitioning to a workflow a little more like his second one, and I see the benefits, it's just hard to remember the commands and what sequence they need to be executed in.

bprater• 18 years ago

For everyone writing articles like these, this is an excellent example on how to get people into a technology.

Instead of giving them 15 commands to try to figure out, you hand them three. When they get these three, you give them another situation and hit them with more functionality.

Had I known that I could do most of my Git work with a couple commands, I wouldn't have spent two days reading every last thing about Git I could find.

tdavis• 18 years ago

My workflow involves a master branch for the dot-com site and two others for some content-specific subdomains. Because of this, I find cherry-pick absolutely wonderful.

Some good info in the article, though I think these comments have some better stuff.

ivey3• 18 years ago

Yeah, I didn't do more than just mention cherry-pick, but that's really a great way to show how different git is from SVN. There's no way to do that, or anything close, with SVN.

sh1mmer• 18 years ago

I'd also recommend reading the "Git for computer scientists" linked in this post (http://eagain.net/articles/git-for-computer-scientists/).

My Git Workflow

Related Stories