I have been looking at gitflow and maybe someone can clear up this reasoning for me. The merge of a hotfix is done back into master and into develop. It seems to me it should merge to release as well. Release gets merged into develop and master anyways. The problem I see with not merging hotfixes into release is that if I build a release and it passes, merge that release into master but there are hotfixes in master that weren't included in my release build, technically I should revalidate again. If hotfixes were merged into release as well and that build passed, there would be no need for a rebuild after things were merged into master. Also, release gets merged back into develop anyways, so merging into release would by default get those changes back into develop. This is a gripe more with the standard gitflow than with the fact that Source Tree has implemented it this way, but maybe there is a reason for it.
Thoughts?
Community moderators have prevented the ability to post new answers.
SourceTree supports the original gitflow plugin (description). All the behavior you describe is controlled by that.
After-re-scanning Nvie's blog, he appears to agree with you: "when a release branch currently exists, the hotfix changes need to be merged into that release branch, instead of develop". However, I can't explain why he wouldn't have programmed that behavior into his own plugin.
There are feature requests for getting SourceTree to switch to a fork of Nvie's gitflow (Nvie's is no longer maintained), but I'm not sure what its behavior would be in this scenario.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.