1. General
  2. RFE (Request for Enhancement)
0

GitFlow: Better PullRequest-Integration (e.g. Bitbucket)

Wolfgang S. 5 years ago • updated 5 years ago • 1

We would like to have a better integration of Pull Requests for feature-, hotfix- and support-branches.

In our environment these branches could be merged with Pull Request only (push branch and create a pull request).

So e.g. FINISH a feature-branch should not merge it onto local develop branch.

Wolfgang S. 5 years ago

What we would like to have, is some sort of combined process of GitFlow and Pull Requests (e.g. Bitbucket).

But let me first show you our current Development/Release-Process:

We are about 15 developers. Each of them ...

  1. creates a local feature-Branch (either from develop or releasePrepared) for coding and testing,
  2. then PUSH it to Atlassian Bitbucket,
  3. then creates a Pull Request,
  4. another person reviews and merges (on Bitbucket) the feature-branch into the develop-branch (or releasePrepared),
  5. and finally - after beeing merged - deletes the remote feature-branch (see attached picture, but sorry its in german).

While using this workflow process we can take only partial advantage of the implemented GitFlow-Support in SmartGit with "Start Feature", but could not use "Finish Feature" - and have to delete the remaining local feature-branch manually (same for "Start Release").

Maybe an optional (by configuration) GitFlow-Button like "Create Pull Request" which would create a PR on Bitbucket and switch to develop-branch, then delete the obsolete feature-branch. Currently the available "Create Pull Request"-Feature is accessible on the context menu of a branch only in the LOG-Window, and as default for the target branch, is not proposed the base branch, but /develop (but Gitflow config is: PROD/develop)

The workflow process above we have in two shapes one with prefix PROD/ (code which should go into production) and one with ENTW/ (code which should not go into production until the next major release in about a quarter). Thus we are switchinig the GitFlow configuration with a script (to have the appropriate git-environment and the right database during development).


It seems for me that in .git/config at least some of these manually deleted branches were not deleted (in [gitflow]-section).

Maybe we are using a suboptimal workflow process, - if you'll have any better variant we'll appreciate it.

Possibly our workflow is so peculiar that it's not worth to think about SmartGit-Support?


kind regards

Wolfgang

Customer support service by UserEcho