Do you review your Pull/Merge Request before assigning Reviewers?
If you work in a team opening a Pull Request (or Merge Request) looks appropriate. However, have you ever thought about opening a Pull/Merge Request when working by yourself? Here's a checklist of things you can review in your own:
- Pick the correct target branch
- Make Drafts explicit
- Name things properly
- Ask help for tools
- Remove the noise
- Fetch necessary data
- Understand Mergeability
- Pass the message
- Add screenshots
- Be found in the future
- Comment inline in your changes
Read the blog post for more detailed explanation for each item :D
What else do you review before asking for code review?
Using an inclusive language is crucial for fostering a diverse culture. Git has changed the naming conventions to be more language-inclusive, and so you should change. Our development tools, like GitHub and GitLab, already supports the change.
SourceLevel deals very nicely with repositories that changed the master branch to a more appropriate word. Besides, you can use the grep linter the look for exclusive terms contained in the source code.
As the inclusive language gap may happen in other aspects of our lives, have you already thought about them?
One of the magic tricks git performs is the ability to rewrite log history. You can do it in many ways, but
git rebase -i is the one I most use. With this command, It’s possible to switch commits order, remove a commit, squash two or more commits, or edit, for instance.
It’s particularly useful to run it before opening a pull request. It allows developers to “clean up” the mess and organize commits before submitting to review. If you follow the practice 3 and 4, then the list of commits should look very similar to a task list. It should reveal the rationale you had, telling the story of how you end up with that final code.
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Docker Hub?
What is GitHub?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
For starters you can fork a repo, edit it online and send a pull request which is huge if its something very small that you want to commit. The whole pull request system, the UI and the UX are great. If I sent out a pull request that failed on travis CI then all I need to do is fix it in my fork and the original pull request will have these updates as well making it super easy for everyone involved. Overall a great service.
I love GitHub! They provide a completely free service for hosting, storing, and collaborating on code. Seriously, if you aren't using them, go sign up now.
Great collaboration-friendly git repository hosting. Plus integration with all sorts of other stuff, like Travis CI. But the command bar has disappeared...
It's the best tools I have ever used.
"Having a CI server building all commits across all branches was a huge first step, but to make this useful we needed to surface the outcome of these builds. This is where GitHub’s commit status API comes in. Every time our CI server begins a build, it pings GitHub’s commit status endpoint, and every time it completes a build it hits the endpoint again with the outcome. Now every open PR includes a yellow/red/green indicator for the branch in question, with a direct link to the build status page on our CI server. In practice this means more transparency, faster feedback cycles, and a guarantee that every branch merged into master has a passing test suite. This integration has been a huge help in keeping our master branch green, and has thus greatly reduced our deploy times (since engineers aren’t waiting on build failures to be resolved in master)."
GitHub is a Web-based Git version control repository hosting service. It is mostly used for computer code. It offers all of the distributed version control and source code management (SCM) functionality of Git as well as adding its own features. It provides access control and several collaboration features such as bug tracking, feature requests, task management, and wikis for every project
Yeah, so we use GitHub, and we basically use a variant of continuous deployment where when anyone merges in a feature that they’ve finished with, they ship it immediately, and we bundle it up as a build pack and send it to all of our EC2 servers... Any developer on the team can trigger a build and deploy at any time. So on a given day, we probably deploy 20 or 30 times to prod.
One thing I really wish GitHub had: Trello-style kanban for Issues. There are a bunch of services and tools that add Kanban to GitHub Issues. But Trello just seems far better. If GitHub had it’s own kanban tool, I’d probably use it. Right now it’s pretty painful to try to tie cards to commits manually (when/if we remember to).
GitHub is a web-based hosting service for version control using Git. It offers all of the distributed version control and source code management (SCM) functionality of Git as well as adding its own features. It provides access control and several collaboration features such as bug tracking, feature requests, task management, and wikis for every project.