Sean Kelley <sean.v.kelley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have been trying to set-up a workflow for developers in my group > using GIT. I came up with this simplified flow. Do you all see any > problems with this approach? ... > Always work out of master > > git checkout master > > Getting The Latest Upstream Code into master > > git pull origin master > > Create a topic branch for your development work > > git checkout -b <new topic branch name> That can be streamlined slightly: git fetch git checkout -b <new-topic> origin as fetch would by default download from remote 'origin' and update the tracking branches. And of course developers may not want to create their new branch from origin, e.g. if they are doing a bug fix to an earlier release of the product. I think its a good habit to be in to always specify the origination point for a branch when creating it. > Do your development in the topic branch > > edit/debug/test > > Committing Changes > > git commit -a Sure, that's CVS-like and rather simple. > Switch back to master > > git checkout master > > Update the master branch from origin again > > git pull origin master > > Now Merge your topic branch > > git pull . <topic branch to merge into current branch> Yes, that works and will get you a merge message like Merge branch 'my-topic' into master which is probably what you want if there actually was a merge. If there wasn't (its just a fast-forward) then you won't get the merge message. It also has the nice property that the "trunk (if there is such a thing)" is the first parent in every merge, with the topic(s) in the other parents. Though I tend to just pull the origin into the current branch and push that directly, e.g.: git pull origin master git push origin HEAD:master -- Shawn. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html