Web lists-archives.com

Re: "groups of files" in Git?

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.

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