the team I work with doesn't accept the fact that the master
branch should be merged into develop
in order to align develop
with master
's hot-fixes/bug-fixes.
They are scared that somehow when they merge master
(our stable production branch) into develop
(the branch with all the feature-branch branches merged into which are not yet deployed into production), ahead work made on develop
which is yet to test could be lost.
And this happened several times (not with me though) that someone of our team told us "I merged master
into develop
and it overridden the ahead changes made on develop
by X (another developer)".
So, I guess that maybe someone is using git
not in the right way, as I didn't experience this problem when I merge master
into develop
, somehow bringing develop
to an old version without the new stuff being tested which was there before the merge.
Any thoughts and ideas on why this could happen? What do you think could be the problem we are sometimes facing when we merge master
into develop
?
I know that master
should be merged back into develop as soon as there's a hot-fix/bug-fix, otherwise develop
won't have this fix. My colleagues keep arguing that this could lead to the above mentioned problem. Who is right?
But, logically, if you merge master
into develop
, it's the same as merging master
into your feature-branch-1
and then merge this branch feature-branch-1
into develop
(you are just bringing the changes made on master
to develop
through a third branch, in this case feature-branch-1
). What do you think?
Thanks for the attention!
EDIT: I am still investigating, please, even if I accept an answer, tell me what do you think, I would like to acquire as much opinions as possible regarding this fact.