Sandofsky supporters are very strict about your “core” repo history, keeping it clean without cluttering it with branches and checkpoints.
You should never combine a private affiliate directly into a public affiliate with vanilla fusion. First, clear the branch using tools such as reset, rebase, squash merges and make a fix.
View public history as unchanging, atomic, and easy to follow. View your personal story as one-time and malleable.
This appeals to me, and I planned to implement a workflow when my colleagues have their own remote repository that will click on it and make download requests when they finish work on the branch and clear the commit history. Subsequently, I (the “integration manager”) combine these net commits into a common development branch.
I suppose this approach means that the blessed repo will have no branches other than a master and branch development . Function panels will only exist in your local repository - if collaboration in a branch is required, this can happen by moving the branch to the remote repository of one of the collaborating employees.
However, the Pro Git book describes this as a workflow for "small, small projects." Does this mean that it is better to use a different workflow in our case, for example, clicking ready-made branches on a blessed repo instead of a personal repository?
To be clear: I do not want to add extra complexity or overhead. My goal is to create a workflow where my colleagues and I can work asynchronously, I can view their work when they are done, and bounce back with comments or combine them into a code base if everything works out well.
Change . Obviously, the question asked was not clear, so I will try to summarize it:
, (, " " - )?