In this post, we will go over why branching is required, the difference between development, staging and production environments, why a strategy is...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
How do you handle hotfixes into master/production if the develop/staging branch has changes (maybe new features) that cannot be pulled into production yet?
Though not a frequent occurence and should be avoided, but in those specific scenarios, we can create a new branch from master, test the hotfix and create a pull request to master which should be validated and approved by people other than the dev who makes the change.
P.S.
Do suggest a methodology incase you have something in mind
Oh not acceptable, since you mess up with master branch. My methodology is to have another permanent branch release which can serve as source/target of hotfixes.
A very good and through introduction to conventional branching strategy; however I didn't find a notion of hotfixes here. hotfixes are different from bugfixes, they come from production/testing team and customer issues respectively. Considering hotfixes, then some modification should be applied to suggestions made here. Other than master, another branch should be available called releases. This branch will be source and target of hotfix/ branches between two minor/major releases and deliver not-fully-tesed fixes to customer under a new patch releases (in semver we've got major, minor and patch increments).
The idea is customer should not wait for a planned next release, but fixes should be instantly available, even without covering all test cases. Hence such a patch increment will not announce to all customers but only the affected ones. But all such fixes should be transferred or re-implemented into development to mature in routine life cycle of production including coverage test. Then release branch will be updated by next major/minor increment from stable while it has all such hotfix counter measures already included.
Another issue I found with your article is that you did not distinguish temporary branches from permanent ones.
This strategy has been proven to be an anti-pattern though, for more on this: martinfowler.com/articles/branchin...
I disagree with that assessment. The anti-pattern originates from "An environmental branch is branch that contains commits that apply to the source code to reconfigure the product to run in a different environment." The suggested branching model, when no changes are being made to development, will eventually result in development, staging, and production being absolutely identical.
You don't explain why the dev is making multiple commits for a feature (e.g. footer).
Branching is powerful but not the only paradigm.
I agree with you that branching is not the only paradigm. I am just explaining about the branching strategies and good practices to follow and there's a saying that start the day with a pull and end the day with a push to prevent any loss of code. So as you say, footer is just an example and consider a big feature !
Hello,
What does this sentence mean: "In a huge project involving many users, a single feature, depending on the need, can be worked by many users." from huge project with many users section. Can anybody explain me please?
The user context over there means as a developer right? Multiple developers(users) working on the same feature, not the user that is when the code is live.
why would you branch new features from develop? that means you are bringing in untested code from others that may not even make it to production.