> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Lars Schneider > <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 11 Jul 2017, at 17:45, Nikolay Shustov <nikolay.shustov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> I have been recently struggling with migrating my development workflow >>> from Perforce to Git, all because of the following thing: >>> >>> I have to work on several features in the same code tree parallel, in >>> the same Perforce workspace. The major reason why I cannot work on one >>> feature then on another is just because I have to make sure that the >>> changes in the related areas of the product play together well. >>> >>> With Perforce, I can have multiple changelists opened, that group the >>> changed files as needed. >>> >>> With Git I cannot seem to finding the possibility to figure out how to >>> achieve the same result. And the problem is that putting change sets >>> on different Git branches (or workdirs, or whatever Git offers that >>> makes the changes to be NOT in the same source tree) is not a viable >>> option from me as I would have to re-build code as I re-integrate the >>> changes between the branches (or whatever changes separation Git >>> feature is used). >>> Build takes time and resources and considering that I have to do it on >>> multiple platforms (I do cross-platform development) it really >>> denominates the option of not having multiple changes in the same code >>> tree. >>> >>> Am I ignorant about some Git feature/way of using Git that would help? >>> Is it worth considering adding to Git a feature like "group of files" >>> that would offer some virtutal grouping of the locally changed files >>> in the checked-out branch? >> >> Interesting question that came up at my workplace, too. >> >> Here is what I suggested: >> 1. Keep working on a single branch and make commits for all features >> 2. If you make a commit, prefix the commit message with the feature name >> 3. After you are done with a feature create a new feature branch based on >> your combined feature branch. Use `git rebase -i` [1] to remove all >> commits that are not relevant for the feature. Alternatively you could >> cherry pick the relevant commits [2] if this is faster. >> >> I wonder what others think about this solution. Maybe there is a better >> solution that I overlooked? >> >> - Lars >> >> [1] https://robots.thoughtbot.com/git-interactive-rebase-squash-amend-rewriting-history >> [2] http://think-like-a-git.net/sections/rebase-from-the-ground-up/cherry-picking-explained.html >> > On 11 Jul 2017, at 19:54, Nikolay Shustov <nikolay.shustov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thank you for the idea, however I am having troubles with basically > maintaining the uncommitted groups of files: I would prefer the clear > distinction that "those files belong to feature A" and "these files > belong to feature B", before I commit anything. Committing separately > every change for feature A and for feature B would probably a good > option unless I have many changes and then cherry-picking the proper > commits to create a single changeset for the integration would become > a nightmare. I see. Why so complicated with gitattributes then? How about this: Let's say you start working on featureX that affects file1 and file2 and featureY that affects file8 and file9 1. Create aliases to add the files: $ git config --local alias.featx 'add file1 file2' $ git config --local alias.featy 'add file8 file9' 2. Work on the features. Whenever you have something ready for featureX run this: $ git featx $ git commit Whenever you have something ready for featureY run this: $ git featy $ git commit Wouldn't that work? - Lars
