gitflow VS terraform-provider-wireguard

1. GitFlow

Pull Requests (or Merge Requests) are merged only when (1) all of the automated tests pass; and (2) enough necessary reviewers have indicated approval.

Git doesn't tell you when it's necessary to have full test coverage and manual infosec review in development cycles that produce releases, and neither do Pull Requests.

https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-19552164 ctrl-f hubflow

It looks like datasift's gitflow/hubflow docs are 404'ing, but the original nvie blog post [1] has the Git branching workflow diagrams; which the wpsharks/hubflow fork [3] of datasift/gitflow fork [2] of gitflow [1]has a copy of in the README:

[1] https://github.com/nvie/gitflow

[2] https://github.com/datasift/gitflow

[3] https://github.com/wpsharks/hubflow?tab=readme-ov-file

https://learngitbranching.js.org/ is still a great resource, and it could work on mobile devices.

The math of VCS deltas and mutable and immutable content-addressed DAG nodes identified by 2^n bits describing repo/$((2*inf)) bits ;

>> "ugit – Learn Git Internals by Building Git in Python" https://www.leshenko.net/p/ugit/

SLSA.dev is a social construct atop e.g. git, which is really a low-level purpose-built tool and Perl and now Python porcelain.

jj (jujutsu) is a git-compatible VCS CLI: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

"Ask HN: Best Git workflow for small teams" (2016)

A successful Git branching model - известная модель ветвления от Vincent Driessen.

Before embarking on the project, we needed to decide on our Git workflow. Having experienced the unnecessary indirection and bureaucracy of Gitflow, I immediately proposed and implemented a trunk-based strategy instead.

As a best practice, consider creating a dev branch where you can stage your code and collaborate with other developers on your team. Alternatively, you can follow the Trunk-based development branching strategy. For larger teams and complex deployment cycles, the Gitflow branching model might be more suitable.

Note - this IS NOT Git Flow, which is way too complicated for what we're doing. Even the person who created Git Flow has some warnings and thoughts about it, 10 years later (https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/).

just use Gitflow

Git and this: https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

By default it shows the commit message doesn't it? At least I'm not aware I've done anything for e.g. https://github.com/OJFord/terraform-provider-wireguard/actio...

The annoyance I'm describing is that when the commit message is 'merge branch master' (and especially if, as the label next to it shows, it is the master branch) this is crap and useless, and hiding the 'real' commits behind it that the committer had locally while behind the remote. If they had `git pull --rebase`d (or `git pull` with the config option set) the commit message would be that of the latest 'real' one.