Git: Fixbug is a bug-fixing branch built based on the local master. What is the best practice in actual scenarios?
ps: The remote master has permissions for multiple people.
The operation of this process in the actual production environment is a bit confusing:
First type:
git checkout fixbug
git add .
git commit -m '...'
git checkout master
git pull origin master
git merge fixbug
master put for testing
Testing OK
git pull origin master
master is online
Second type:
git checkout fixbug
git add .
git commit -m '...'
git checkout master
git pull origin master
git checkout fixbug
git merger master
fixbug put in test environment for testing
After the test is OK,
git checkout master
git pull origin master
git merge fixbug
git push -u origin master
13.master online
Third type:
What’s your suggestion?
Crab!
1
0
0
The second feeling is that there is a logical loophole. After the ninth release test was completed, I reconciled with the master again. If there are changes in the code, I have to test it again.
If the project is complex and multiple people are developing it in parallel, then there should be a mediator. After other programmers make a pull request, the moderator needs to review the code before determining whether to merge it with the remote master.
General projects do not have a mediator, so the mediator is you. Just review it yourself.
![[Web front-end] Node.js quick start](https://img.php.cn/upload/course/000/000/067/662b5d34ba7c0227.png)
