Hello Git Developers,
During the processing of the AI an interesting piece of text was lost, the "problem description".
This text may be interesting for those who want a slightly better understanding of what this workflow aims to solve.
Here is the lost text/problem description, core principles extra explained which is also important to get a complete picture (for example the user name + version numbering + optional description approach for a branch name)
Short Example:
SkybuckContribution0001-optional-description-goal-of-branch
Commit0001
Description of which work was done in this comment.
Commit0002
Commit0003
The lost text:
-----
### The Problems This Workflow Aims to Solve:
1. **Loss of History via Branch Deletion:** Many conventional Git workflows advocate for deleting feature branches after they're merged. While this tidies the branch list, it effectively loses the direct traceability of a branch's specific development path and its individual lifecycle status, especially for rejected or experimental work.
2. **Branch Sprawl & Lack of Clarity:** In projects that don't delete branches, the `git branch -a` output can quickly become an unmanageable list where it's unclear which branches are active, which have been merged, and which were abandoned.
3. **Lack of Personal Developer Continuity:** Developers often lose a clear, sequential personal history of their work, as individual contributions are ephemeral branches that are either deleted or become indistinguishable in a large `git branch` output.
4. **Risk of Accidental Data Loss:** Relying on `git branch -D` or `git push --delete` introduces a risk of accidental data loss if a branch wasn't fully incorporated or its history is needed later.
-----
### My Proposed Solution: A Permanent History & Tag-Driven Status Workflow
My workflow ensures that **no development branch is ever truly deleted** from the remote repository. Instead, their lifecycle status is explicitly managed using lightweight Git tags. This is combined with a set of custom Git commands (implemented as aliases or shell scripts) to streamline and safeguard operations.
**Core Principles:**
* **Permanent Branches:** All `UserPrefixContributionNNN-Description` branches persist in the repository.
* **Tag-Defined Status:** Tags like `active/branchname`, `merged/branchname`, `rejected/branchname` clearly indicate the branch's current state.
* **Developer-Centric:** Each developer maintains a sequential series of their contributions.
**Key Custom Git Commands:**
Here's a summary of the core commands that automate and enforce this workflow:
1. **`git new-contribution <UserPrefix> <Description/Goal>`**
* **Purpose:** The primary command for starting new work.
* **Action:** Fetches `master`, determines the next sequential `ContributionNumber` for `<UserPrefix>`, creates `UserPrefixContributionNNN-Description` from `master`, pushes it, and sets it `active/`.
* **Example:** `git new-contribution Skybuck "User profile management"`
2. **`git set-active <branchname>`**
* **Purpose:** Explicitly marks an existing contribution branch as active.
* **Action:** Removes any `merged/` or `rejected/` tags, creates/updates an `active/branchname` tag.
3. **`git set-merged <branchname>`**
* **Purpose:** Marks a contribution branch as successfully integrated into `master`.
* **Action:** Removes `active/` or `rejected/` tags, creates a `merged/branchname` tag.
4. **`git set-rejected <branchname>`**
* **Purpose:** Marks a contribution branch as not being integrated into `master`.
* **Action:** Removes `active/` or `merged/` tags, creates a `rejected/branchname` tag.
5. **`git set-revive <branchname>`**
* **Purpose:** To "re-activate" an *existing* `merged/` or `rejected/` contribution branch for continuation *in its original historical context*.
* **Action:** Removes `merged/` or `rejected/` tags, and sets the branch `active/`.
* **Note:** This does *not* rebase the branch onto `master`.
-----
### The "Back to the Future" Combo: Recovering & Modernizing Historical Code
This is a two-command sequence for bringing code from an old tag forward to align with current `master`. It separates starting from history from the potentially interactive process of modernizing it.
#### 5.1. **Stage 1: `git back-to <tagname_of_old_commit> <new_branch_description>`**
* **Purpose:** This is your initial "time-travel" command. Its job is to create a **brand new, clean development branch** that starts *exactly* at the historical commit pointed to by your chosen tag. It isolates this old code, giving you a fresh workspace.
* **Action:**
1. **Validates Input:** Ensures the provided `<tagname_of_old_commit>` exists and you've given a `<new_branch_description>`.
2. **Generates New Branch Name:** Following your `UserPrefixContributionNNN` convention, it determines the next available sequence number for your user and creates a name like `UserPrefixContribution<NextNumber>-<description>`.
3. **Creates Local Branch:** It checks out the specific commit from the past and creates your `new_branch_name` at that exact point.
4. **Pushes to Remote:** Your newly created historical branch is immediately pushed to the remote for backup and visibility.
5. **Sets Active Status:** It automatically calls `git SetActive <new_branch_name>`, immediately marking this new branch as `active/` in your repository's status tracking system.
* **Example:** `git back-to merged/AI0001Contribution007-OldAPIDesign "Re-evaluate V1 API for performance"`
```bash
# This creates branch AI0001Contribution008-Re-evaluateV1APIForPerformance,
# and sets it active. You are now working on code from that old point in time.
```
* **Important Note (Initial State):** The new branch created by `git BackTo` is *not* automatically updated with the current `master` branch's changes. It's truly a snapshot of the past.
#### 5.2. **Stage 2: `git TheFuture` (or `git TheFutureRebase`)**
* **Purpose:** This command is the "modernization" step. Once you're on a branch (often one created by `git BackTo`) that you want to bring up to date with the latest `master`, `git TheFuture` initiates the rebase process.
* **Action:**
1. **Context Check:** Validates that you're currently on a branch and not in a detached HEAD state.
2. **Master Update:** Ensures your local `master` branch is up-to-date with the remote `master` (and may prompt you to pull if not).
3. **Initiates Rebase:** Executes `git rebase master`. This attempts to reapply each of your current branch's commits (which started from an old point) sequentially on top of the latest `master`.
4. **Crucial: User Intervention for Conflicts:** **This is where human input is vital.** If Git encounters any conflicts, `git TheFuture` will pause. It will then provide you with clear instructions on how to manually resolve these conflicts (e.g., `git add .` and `git rebase --continue`) or how to abort the rebase (`git rebase --abort`). The script cannot resolve conflicts for you; human decision is required.
5. **Completion Guidance:** Once the rebase successfully completes (or is aborted by you), the command provides guidance on how to push your now-modernized branch to the remote (`git push --force-with-lease` is often required after a rebase).
* **Example:** (After creating and switching to `AI0001Contribution008-Re-evaluateV1APIForPerformance`) `git TheFuture`
```bash
# Git will now walk you through any conflicts as it replays your commits on top of master.
# Once done, you'd push your changes and propose a merge request to master.
```
-----
### Overall Benefits:
This workflow provides true historical integrity, eliminates the fear of accidental data loss, offers a clean view of branch status, and empowers individual developers with a clear progression of their work. The commands abstract common complex Git operations into safer, more intuitive steps.
**Implementation Challenges and Request for Support:**
This workflow is currently implemented using Bash scripts, which work seamlessly on Linux environments and within Git Bash on Windows. However, a significant hurdle for broader adoption, particularly on Windows, is the **lack of native compatibility for such rich scripting in Windows Command Prompt (CMD) or PowerShell.**
I would be incredibly grateful if the Git project or the community could consider how such advanced, multi-step workflows could be more easily and robustly integrated or supported directly within native Windows environments. This would greatly enhance accessibility and utility for a wider developer base.
I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this approach. Are there similar workflows or existing Git features that achieve these goals? What are potential pitfalls or improvements you might suggest?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Skybuck Flying
skybuck2000@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----
