| > it has no opinion on workflows Oh really? Staged/Unstaged + Commit + Push to remote+branch. Branches (I suppose you could chuck everything in master), and opt-in or out of tagging. Maybe users will keep their own remote repositories ("forks")? Even then, it's still pulling in code with the same history that's going to get reconciled via a merge or rebase. Whether it's "forked" to their own repo or in a branch of the "main" repo, it's all the same in the end. > there's a need for a tool that will automate and enforce git workflows There's easy, light-weight branching baked right into git. They scale locally, remotely, and also work with different user's remotes. You can also merge branches into branches. You can pull --rebase them as well. > there's a need for a tool that will automate and enforce git workflows. Beyond branches and remotes? > I wrote a hacky 'git sync' script at an old company and it achieved what sending a bunch of developers on a course about git did not (it sped up the workflow and cut down on git errors). Checking out branches and git add/status/diff/commit/push is that time consuming not only would you need to create a shortcut, other devs would opt-in to it? I use shortcuts for various things in my shell. I have a .gitconfig in my dot-config files (https://github.com/tony/.dot-config). Personal tweaks for coloring and editor settings, a global gitignore. I'm the kind of a guy who picks up shell plugins for fun to try them, but I know that pushing a tool on top of a VCS on colleagues won't go over well. What did `git sync` do? |
Yeah, because most branching and merging in a team setting follows a policy. That branch/merge strategy (and naming) is based upon a whole host of things including testing strategies, release schedules, issue tracker used, code review policies, how much you need bisect, etc.
Git is entirely indifferent to those workflows and is as happy to let you follow it as it is to let you commit and push directly to the master branch with a commit message of "fixed shit".
>Checking out branches and git add/status/diff/commit/push is that time consuming not only would you need to create a shortcut, other devs would opt-in to it?
Yeah, when you add stashing, changing to the correct branches, rebasing and pushing, changing back and unstashing it actually does get tedious, especially since I needed to run it about 20 times a day.
I actually didn't even create the script for them originally, I created it for me and they just started using it.