Skip to content

Commit 9a43575

Browse files
committed
Add figure illustrating
1 parent 5a637be commit 9a43575

File tree

2 files changed

+115
-0
lines changed

2 files changed

+115
-0
lines changed
Lines changed: 110 additions & 0 deletions
Loading

docs/development/git.md

Lines changed: 5 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ Longer description that might contain bullet points:
153153

154154
We are using a [Centralised Workflow](https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows#centralized-workflow). This is also called [Trunk Based Development](https://trunkbaseddevelopment.com/) (see this [article](https://medium.com/@mattia.battiston/why-i-love-trunk-based-development-641fcf0b94a0) for a discussion). Popular other workflows include [GitHub Flow](https://githubflow.github.io/) and [Gitflow](https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/gitflow-workflow).
155155

156+
<figure markdown>
157+
![Git clone](../assets/figures/git_pull_rebase.svg)
158+
<figcaption>`git pull` is used to incorporate upstream changes into the repository. The `--rebase` option tells Git to move all of the local commits to the tip of the `main` branch after synchronising it with the changes from the central repository. From [Atlassian documentation](https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows#centralized-workflow)</figcaption>
159+
</figure>
160+
156161
## Pull Requests
157162

158163
Recommendation for pull request reviewers: When merging, we generally like `squash+merge`. Unless it is the rare case of a PR with carefully staged individual commits that you want in the history separately, in which case `merge` is acceptable, but usually prefer `squash+merge`.

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)