After resolving the conflict, you simply call git flow release finish [RELEASE_NAME] again. git is ‘smart’ in that if you try to do merge from branch A to branch B more than once, the second and subsequent times are ignored with “Already up-to-date” as long as the source of the merge has not changed.
The difference is in goals and process. A release branch is usually created when you are preparing for an upcoming release. When all your feature branches which are supposed to be released have already been merged to develop branch you create release branch off develop branch and commit only bug fixes or some configuration changes … Read more
I would say that staging should be based on a git flow release branch. After a git flow release start and git flow release publish you can start QA work on that branch, including deploying it to a staging area. When the QA work in the staging area has proven the code ready for production … Read more
I’ll refer to parts of the first diagram from nvie.com’s Git Flow page throughout my answer; for completion, I’ve added a screenshot of it below. Today, the QA dept would like to take my new feature for a test drive. However, if I create them a build from my branch, none of the bug fixes … Read more
You can set the environment variable export GIT_MERGE_AUTOEDIT=no git flow release finish -m ‘Merge Message’ release_branch_name unset GIT_MERGE_AUTOEDIT It won’t invoke the editor for when you merge. If you switch to my fork git-flow AVH Edition you can set this option to only work for when you use git-flow.
If the fix you need to apply is just a one commit fix I would just do it in develop without creating a branch, if it involves multiple commits you just use the git flow feature command. The software currently will do a git merge -ff when you finish a feature branch with only one … Read more
The project I work in is very chaotic, decisions change in a matter of minutes, so my strategy is to procrastinate as much as possible software configuration management decisions. Particularly, merging into master: we only merge to master after we deployed in production and we have a confirmation e-mail that smoke tests worked fine. This … Read more
For the git workflow, as presented in [1]: feature: All features / new functions / major refactorings are done in feature branches, which branch off and are merged back into the develop branch (usually after some kind of peer review). release: When enough features have accumulated or the next release time frame comes near, a … Read more
The use of the term “back merge” is usually somewhat arbitrary. It just means to do a merge, like any other, but in a direction that is “backwards” compared to the normal flow of the branching conventions. If you visualize branches arranged like master hotfix release dev feature | | | | | | | … Read more
For normal releases, just do the snapshot version bump after merging the release branch: Create the release branch off develop and remove the snapshot from the version Merge it into master Merge it into develop Change the version on develop to the next snapshot version Push both master and develop As you push all the … Read more