A post about stacked diffs:
This is a very interesting approach that works quite well, and with a slight tweak (stacked branches vs stacked diffs), is not mutually exlusive with gitworkflow.
Stacked branches essentially takes all the pain out of managing topic branch dependencies -- in gitworkflow these are handled via recording topic dependencies i.e. topic B depends on topic A, by merging A into B, and then continuing to work on B. In stacked branches, B is simply "stacked" on top of A, and the tooling manages the stack i.e. if A changes, B is automatically rebased.
Stacked diffs / branches is more about developing code and doing code reviews and managing a developer's stack of work, while gitworkflow is more about CI and deploying code, so I believe these tools and techniques are complementary.
I've been playing around with https://graphite.dev/ and its really very nice. See this introductory video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE59cfwWL7M.
A post about stacked diffs:
This is a very interesting approach that works quite well, and with a slight tweak (stacked branches vs stacked diffs), is not mutually exlusive with gitworkflow.
Stacked branches essentially takes all the pain out of managing topic branch dependencies -- in gitworkflow these are handled via recording topic dependencies i.e. topic B depends on topic A, by merging A into B, and then continuing to work on B. In stacked branches, B is simply "stacked" on top of A, and the tooling manages the stack i.e. if A changes, B is automatically rebased.
Stacked diffs / branches is more about developing code and doing code reviews and managing a developer's stack of work, while gitworkflow is more about CI and deploying code, so I believe these tools and techniques are complementary.
I've been playing around with https://graphite.dev/ and its really very nice. See this introductory video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE59cfwWL7M.