Efficiently merge handle parallel feature branches in SFDX Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsHow to use GIT on multi dev environmentJenkins + Force.com Migration Tool - REQUEST_RUNNING_TOO_LONGDo Salesforce DX scratch orgs allow a namespace to be nominated?SFDX Development Process - Managed Package and VCSSFDX pull sample data from dev orgGitHub Conflict Resolution issueIgnore files when force:source:convertScratch Org missing from Salesforce DX org listDeploy CPQ related changes to production with SFDXStep-by-step guide to migrate existing managed package to DX

What's the difference between using dependency injection with a container and using a service locator?

What does a straight horizontal line above a few notes, after a changed tempo mean?

What is the difference between Religion and Dharma?

Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)

Is there metaphorical meaning of "aus der Haft entlassen"?

iOS App Store: Unable to download and update apps due to Terms and Conditions loop, even after agreeing

What is the best way to deal with NPC-NPC combat?

Has a Nobel Peace laureate ever been accused of war crimes?

Which fixes from mathtools were merged to the AMS packages already?

Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space as many times as possible so as to lose a lot of kinetic energy up there?

A Paper Record is What I Hamper

Implementing 3DES algorithm in Java: is my code secure?

What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?

Arriving in Atlanta after US Preclearance in Dublin. Will I go through TSA security in Atlanta to transfer to a connecting flight?

How to open locks without disable device?

C++ diamond problem - How to call base method only once

Married in secret, can marital status in passport be changed at a later date?

What is this word supposed to be?

Why WordPress uses 4 tables to manage terms

What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?

All ASCII characters with a given bit count

Approximating integral with small parameter

What is purpose of DB Browser(dbbrowser.aspx) under admin tool?

Map material from china not allowed to leave the country



Efficiently merge handle parallel feature branches in SFDX



Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsHow to use GIT on multi dev environmentJenkins + Force.com Migration Tool - REQUEST_RUNNING_TOO_LONGDo Salesforce DX scratch orgs allow a namespace to be nominated?SFDX Development Process - Managed Package and VCSSFDX pull sample data from dev orgGitHub Conflict Resolution issueIgnore files when force:source:convertScratch Org missing from Salesforce DX org listDeploy CPQ related changes to production with SFDXStep-by-step guide to migrate existing managed package to DX



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








11















Imagine a team of 5 developers using DX scratch orgs (using Salesforce' Falcon Template) for working on multiple features in parallel.



They start from a clean packaging org and a clean Git master. Every developer creates a feature branch for her user story and works on it.



  • When do they commit and push?

  • When do they pull?

  • When do they recreate their scratch orgs?

Those are not scratch org questions or on how to version in general. It's about keeping developers in sync and prevent a big merging orgy when everybody is done.



  1. Should everybody pull and recreate and merge as soon as one story is
    done and merged?

  2. How would that look?

  3. Is the recommended approach documented anywhere?









share|improve this question




























    11















    Imagine a team of 5 developers using DX scratch orgs (using Salesforce' Falcon Template) for working on multiple features in parallel.



    They start from a clean packaging org and a clean Git master. Every developer creates a feature branch for her user story and works on it.



    • When do they commit and push?

    • When do they pull?

    • When do they recreate their scratch orgs?

    Those are not scratch org questions or on how to version in general. It's about keeping developers in sync and prevent a big merging orgy when everybody is done.



    1. Should everybody pull and recreate and merge as soon as one story is
      done and merged?

    2. How would that look?

    3. Is the recommended approach documented anywhere?









    share|improve this question
























      11












      11








      11


      4






      Imagine a team of 5 developers using DX scratch orgs (using Salesforce' Falcon Template) for working on multiple features in parallel.



      They start from a clean packaging org and a clean Git master. Every developer creates a feature branch for her user story and works on it.



      • When do they commit and push?

      • When do they pull?

      • When do they recreate their scratch orgs?

      Those are not scratch org questions or on how to version in general. It's about keeping developers in sync and prevent a big merging orgy when everybody is done.



      1. Should everybody pull and recreate and merge as soon as one story is
        done and merged?

      2. How would that look?

      3. Is the recommended approach documented anywhere?









      share|improve this question














      Imagine a team of 5 developers using DX scratch orgs (using Salesforce' Falcon Template) for working on multiple features in parallel.



      They start from a clean packaging org and a clean Git master. Every developer creates a feature branch for her user story and works on it.



      • When do they commit and push?

      • When do they pull?

      • When do they recreate their scratch orgs?

      Those are not scratch org questions or on how to version in general. It's about keeping developers in sync and prevent a big merging orgy when everybody is done.



      1. Should everybody pull and recreate and merge as soon as one story is
        done and merged?

      2. How would that look?

      3. Is the recommended approach documented anywhere?






      salesforcedx versioning version-control ci feature-management






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Mar 26 at 12:56









      Robert SösemannRobert Sösemann

      13.3k1178231




      13.3k1178231




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5














          I'm going to have to answer the questions out of order for them to make sense, and much of this is anecdotal at this point, but we've been doing this for a couple of years now, so I hope that this answer will be useful.




          Is the recommended approach documented anywhere?




          There are several competing theories on which way is the "best," and it's not related just to Salesforce, but any team that deals with git or another version control system. Salesforce only recommends that we use git, but doesn't prescribe a specific pattern, as far as I'm aware.




          Should everybody pull and recreate and merge as soon as one story is done and merged?




          Depending on the cadence of the team, this is more likely to be disruptive than helpful. There's a fairly simple way to handle this situation, which I'll outline below.




          When do they recreate their scratch orgs?




          Whenever they feel like it. You can do this one per story, once per feature, every time it expires, etc. Assuming all of the code is in your source of truth, it shouldn't matter.




          When do they commit and push?




          Commit periodically to have "backups" in case things go wrong, and push (preferably with a "squash") when it's ready to move on to the next branch.




          When do they pull?




          Immediately before branching or merging.




          How would that look?




          After a lot of painful experiences, we've come up with this process in general. Starting from the point where there's a new story to be implemented...



          The repo should be organized with a master branch, a staging and/or test branch (for deployment to a master testing sandbox), and one branch per story or feature. Start by going to the "dev" branch, whatever that means for your org, pull to make sure you have the latest copy, then create a new branch to work in.



          Developers then push the current state of affairs to a Scratch Org, and begin development using their preferred method. Periodically commit so you can fix mistakes if they happen or if your org expires, etc.



          Once the story is complete, go back to the "dev" branch, pull again, switch back to the story branch, and merge the dev branch in to the story branch. This brings it up to date and will let you know of any merge conflicts.



          Resolve any conflicts, commit again, and then merge/pull request back in to the dev branch. At this point, the dev branch should be good for testing and deployment. Finally, when deploying to production, a similar pull, merge, resolve conflicts (which ideally should not happen), and merge again cycle should happen.



          Once everything is fully merged to production, you can delete the story branches to save space and optimize performance.






          share|improve this answer






























            5














            There are numerous strategies for doing so (So, there is no 1 good answer), however, here are a few resources that can help answers some if not all those questions based on your needs:



            GitFlow Examples




            These examples are using the default configuration with GitVersion. Which is continuous deployment mode for develop and continuous delivery mode for all other branches.




            Feature Branches:



            enter image description here



            GitHub Flow a nutshell:



            1. Update master to latest upstream code

            2. Create a feature branch git checkout -b myFeatureBranch

            3. Do the feature/work (Spawn Scratch Orgs to develop/test features)

            4. Push feature branch to origin

            5. Create pull request from origin/ -> upstream/master

            6. Review, fix raised comments, merge your PR or even better, get someone else to.


            The main rule of GitHub Flow is that master should always be
            deployable. GitHub Flow allows and encourages continuous delivery.




            For a more verbose description of each step, you can refer to Understanding the GitHub flow






            share|improve this answer






























              2














              Our currently workflow:



              • git checkout -b feature/sales-api

              • git commit add .

              • git commit -am ""

              • git fetch origin

              • git rebase origin master

              Once is done, rebase your branch to get the newest version of master, then:



              • sfdx package:version:create....

              Actually we have more than one package in a project. Particularly, I don't like this approach, because if I have only one package by repository we could automate everything.
              Eg. after commit on develop/ build a version and install in the UAT.
              after commit on master/ build a new version/ update the release doc and install in production.



              (Currently we have 35 packages)






              share|improve this answer

























                Your Answer








                StackExchange.ready(function()
                var channelOptions =
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "459"
                ;
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
                createEditor();
                );

                else
                createEditor();

                );

                function createEditor()
                StackExchange.prepareEditor(
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                convertImagesToLinks: false,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: null,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader:
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                ,
                onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                );



                );













                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function ()
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f255333%2fefficiently-merge-handle-parallel-feature-branches-in-sfdx%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes








                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                5














                I'm going to have to answer the questions out of order for them to make sense, and much of this is anecdotal at this point, but we've been doing this for a couple of years now, so I hope that this answer will be useful.




                Is the recommended approach documented anywhere?




                There are several competing theories on which way is the "best," and it's not related just to Salesforce, but any team that deals with git or another version control system. Salesforce only recommends that we use git, but doesn't prescribe a specific pattern, as far as I'm aware.




                Should everybody pull and recreate and merge as soon as one story is done and merged?




                Depending on the cadence of the team, this is more likely to be disruptive than helpful. There's a fairly simple way to handle this situation, which I'll outline below.




                When do they recreate their scratch orgs?




                Whenever they feel like it. You can do this one per story, once per feature, every time it expires, etc. Assuming all of the code is in your source of truth, it shouldn't matter.




                When do they commit and push?




                Commit periodically to have "backups" in case things go wrong, and push (preferably with a "squash") when it's ready to move on to the next branch.




                When do they pull?




                Immediately before branching or merging.




                How would that look?




                After a lot of painful experiences, we've come up with this process in general. Starting from the point where there's a new story to be implemented...



                The repo should be organized with a master branch, a staging and/or test branch (for deployment to a master testing sandbox), and one branch per story or feature. Start by going to the "dev" branch, whatever that means for your org, pull to make sure you have the latest copy, then create a new branch to work in.



                Developers then push the current state of affairs to a Scratch Org, and begin development using their preferred method. Periodically commit so you can fix mistakes if they happen or if your org expires, etc.



                Once the story is complete, go back to the "dev" branch, pull again, switch back to the story branch, and merge the dev branch in to the story branch. This brings it up to date and will let you know of any merge conflicts.



                Resolve any conflicts, commit again, and then merge/pull request back in to the dev branch. At this point, the dev branch should be good for testing and deployment. Finally, when deploying to production, a similar pull, merge, resolve conflicts (which ideally should not happen), and merge again cycle should happen.



                Once everything is fully merged to production, you can delete the story branches to save space and optimize performance.






                share|improve this answer



























                  5














                  I'm going to have to answer the questions out of order for them to make sense, and much of this is anecdotal at this point, but we've been doing this for a couple of years now, so I hope that this answer will be useful.




                  Is the recommended approach documented anywhere?




                  There are several competing theories on which way is the "best," and it's not related just to Salesforce, but any team that deals with git or another version control system. Salesforce only recommends that we use git, but doesn't prescribe a specific pattern, as far as I'm aware.




                  Should everybody pull and recreate and merge as soon as one story is done and merged?




                  Depending on the cadence of the team, this is more likely to be disruptive than helpful. There's a fairly simple way to handle this situation, which I'll outline below.




                  When do they recreate their scratch orgs?




                  Whenever they feel like it. You can do this one per story, once per feature, every time it expires, etc. Assuming all of the code is in your source of truth, it shouldn't matter.




                  When do they commit and push?




                  Commit periodically to have "backups" in case things go wrong, and push (preferably with a "squash") when it's ready to move on to the next branch.




                  When do they pull?




                  Immediately before branching or merging.




                  How would that look?




                  After a lot of painful experiences, we've come up with this process in general. Starting from the point where there's a new story to be implemented...



                  The repo should be organized with a master branch, a staging and/or test branch (for deployment to a master testing sandbox), and one branch per story or feature. Start by going to the "dev" branch, whatever that means for your org, pull to make sure you have the latest copy, then create a new branch to work in.



                  Developers then push the current state of affairs to a Scratch Org, and begin development using their preferred method. Periodically commit so you can fix mistakes if they happen or if your org expires, etc.



                  Once the story is complete, go back to the "dev" branch, pull again, switch back to the story branch, and merge the dev branch in to the story branch. This brings it up to date and will let you know of any merge conflicts.



                  Resolve any conflicts, commit again, and then merge/pull request back in to the dev branch. At this point, the dev branch should be good for testing and deployment. Finally, when deploying to production, a similar pull, merge, resolve conflicts (which ideally should not happen), and merge again cycle should happen.



                  Once everything is fully merged to production, you can delete the story branches to save space and optimize performance.






                  share|improve this answer

























                    5












                    5








                    5







                    I'm going to have to answer the questions out of order for them to make sense, and much of this is anecdotal at this point, but we've been doing this for a couple of years now, so I hope that this answer will be useful.




                    Is the recommended approach documented anywhere?




                    There are several competing theories on which way is the "best," and it's not related just to Salesforce, but any team that deals with git or another version control system. Salesforce only recommends that we use git, but doesn't prescribe a specific pattern, as far as I'm aware.




                    Should everybody pull and recreate and merge as soon as one story is done and merged?




                    Depending on the cadence of the team, this is more likely to be disruptive than helpful. There's a fairly simple way to handle this situation, which I'll outline below.




                    When do they recreate their scratch orgs?




                    Whenever they feel like it. You can do this one per story, once per feature, every time it expires, etc. Assuming all of the code is in your source of truth, it shouldn't matter.




                    When do they commit and push?




                    Commit periodically to have "backups" in case things go wrong, and push (preferably with a "squash") when it's ready to move on to the next branch.




                    When do they pull?




                    Immediately before branching or merging.




                    How would that look?




                    After a lot of painful experiences, we've come up with this process in general. Starting from the point where there's a new story to be implemented...



                    The repo should be organized with a master branch, a staging and/or test branch (for deployment to a master testing sandbox), and one branch per story or feature. Start by going to the "dev" branch, whatever that means for your org, pull to make sure you have the latest copy, then create a new branch to work in.



                    Developers then push the current state of affairs to a Scratch Org, and begin development using their preferred method. Periodically commit so you can fix mistakes if they happen or if your org expires, etc.



                    Once the story is complete, go back to the "dev" branch, pull again, switch back to the story branch, and merge the dev branch in to the story branch. This brings it up to date and will let you know of any merge conflicts.



                    Resolve any conflicts, commit again, and then merge/pull request back in to the dev branch. At this point, the dev branch should be good for testing and deployment. Finally, when deploying to production, a similar pull, merge, resolve conflicts (which ideally should not happen), and merge again cycle should happen.



                    Once everything is fully merged to production, you can delete the story branches to save space and optimize performance.






                    share|improve this answer













                    I'm going to have to answer the questions out of order for them to make sense, and much of this is anecdotal at this point, but we've been doing this for a couple of years now, so I hope that this answer will be useful.




                    Is the recommended approach documented anywhere?




                    There are several competing theories on which way is the "best," and it's not related just to Salesforce, but any team that deals with git or another version control system. Salesforce only recommends that we use git, but doesn't prescribe a specific pattern, as far as I'm aware.




                    Should everybody pull and recreate and merge as soon as one story is done and merged?




                    Depending on the cadence of the team, this is more likely to be disruptive than helpful. There's a fairly simple way to handle this situation, which I'll outline below.




                    When do they recreate their scratch orgs?




                    Whenever they feel like it. You can do this one per story, once per feature, every time it expires, etc. Assuming all of the code is in your source of truth, it shouldn't matter.




                    When do they commit and push?




                    Commit periodically to have "backups" in case things go wrong, and push (preferably with a "squash") when it's ready to move on to the next branch.




                    When do they pull?




                    Immediately before branching or merging.




                    How would that look?




                    After a lot of painful experiences, we've come up with this process in general. Starting from the point where there's a new story to be implemented...



                    The repo should be organized with a master branch, a staging and/or test branch (for deployment to a master testing sandbox), and one branch per story or feature. Start by going to the "dev" branch, whatever that means for your org, pull to make sure you have the latest copy, then create a new branch to work in.



                    Developers then push the current state of affairs to a Scratch Org, and begin development using their preferred method. Periodically commit so you can fix mistakes if they happen or if your org expires, etc.



                    Once the story is complete, go back to the "dev" branch, pull again, switch back to the story branch, and merge the dev branch in to the story branch. This brings it up to date and will let you know of any merge conflicts.



                    Resolve any conflicts, commit again, and then merge/pull request back in to the dev branch. At this point, the dev branch should be good for testing and deployment. Finally, when deploying to production, a similar pull, merge, resolve conflicts (which ideally should not happen), and merge again cycle should happen.



                    Once everything is fully merged to production, you can delete the story branches to save space and optimize performance.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Mar 26 at 13:47









                    sfdcfoxsfdcfox

                    267k13213461




                    267k13213461























                        5














                        There are numerous strategies for doing so (So, there is no 1 good answer), however, here are a few resources that can help answers some if not all those questions based on your needs:



                        GitFlow Examples




                        These examples are using the default configuration with GitVersion. Which is continuous deployment mode for develop and continuous delivery mode for all other branches.




                        Feature Branches:



                        enter image description here



                        GitHub Flow a nutshell:



                        1. Update master to latest upstream code

                        2. Create a feature branch git checkout -b myFeatureBranch

                        3. Do the feature/work (Spawn Scratch Orgs to develop/test features)

                        4. Push feature branch to origin

                        5. Create pull request from origin/ -> upstream/master

                        6. Review, fix raised comments, merge your PR or even better, get someone else to.


                        The main rule of GitHub Flow is that master should always be
                        deployable. GitHub Flow allows and encourages continuous delivery.




                        For a more verbose description of each step, you can refer to Understanding the GitHub flow






                        share|improve this answer



























                          5














                          There are numerous strategies for doing so (So, there is no 1 good answer), however, here are a few resources that can help answers some if not all those questions based on your needs:



                          GitFlow Examples




                          These examples are using the default configuration with GitVersion. Which is continuous deployment mode for develop and continuous delivery mode for all other branches.




                          Feature Branches:



                          enter image description here



                          GitHub Flow a nutshell:



                          1. Update master to latest upstream code

                          2. Create a feature branch git checkout -b myFeatureBranch

                          3. Do the feature/work (Spawn Scratch Orgs to develop/test features)

                          4. Push feature branch to origin

                          5. Create pull request from origin/ -> upstream/master

                          6. Review, fix raised comments, merge your PR or even better, get someone else to.


                          The main rule of GitHub Flow is that master should always be
                          deployable. GitHub Flow allows and encourages continuous delivery.




                          For a more verbose description of each step, you can refer to Understanding the GitHub flow






                          share|improve this answer

























                            5












                            5








                            5







                            There are numerous strategies for doing so (So, there is no 1 good answer), however, here are a few resources that can help answers some if not all those questions based on your needs:



                            GitFlow Examples




                            These examples are using the default configuration with GitVersion. Which is continuous deployment mode for develop and continuous delivery mode for all other branches.




                            Feature Branches:



                            enter image description here



                            GitHub Flow a nutshell:



                            1. Update master to latest upstream code

                            2. Create a feature branch git checkout -b myFeatureBranch

                            3. Do the feature/work (Spawn Scratch Orgs to develop/test features)

                            4. Push feature branch to origin

                            5. Create pull request from origin/ -> upstream/master

                            6. Review, fix raised comments, merge your PR or even better, get someone else to.


                            The main rule of GitHub Flow is that master should always be
                            deployable. GitHub Flow allows and encourages continuous delivery.




                            For a more verbose description of each step, you can refer to Understanding the GitHub flow






                            share|improve this answer













                            There are numerous strategies for doing so (So, there is no 1 good answer), however, here are a few resources that can help answers some if not all those questions based on your needs:



                            GitFlow Examples




                            These examples are using the default configuration with GitVersion. Which is continuous deployment mode for develop and continuous delivery mode for all other branches.




                            Feature Branches:



                            enter image description here



                            GitHub Flow a nutshell:



                            1. Update master to latest upstream code

                            2. Create a feature branch git checkout -b myFeatureBranch

                            3. Do the feature/work (Spawn Scratch Orgs to develop/test features)

                            4. Push feature branch to origin

                            5. Create pull request from origin/ -> upstream/master

                            6. Review, fix raised comments, merge your PR or even better, get someone else to.


                            The main rule of GitHub Flow is that master should always be
                            deployable. GitHub Flow allows and encourages continuous delivery.




                            For a more verbose description of each step, you can refer to Understanding the GitHub flow







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Mar 26 at 13:40









                            gllsglls

                            12k72253




                            12k72253





















                                2














                                Our currently workflow:



                                • git checkout -b feature/sales-api

                                • git commit add .

                                • git commit -am ""

                                • git fetch origin

                                • git rebase origin master

                                Once is done, rebase your branch to get the newest version of master, then:



                                • sfdx package:version:create....

                                Actually we have more than one package in a project. Particularly, I don't like this approach, because if I have only one package by repository we could automate everything.
                                Eg. after commit on develop/ build a version and install in the UAT.
                                after commit on master/ build a new version/ update the release doc and install in production.



                                (Currently we have 35 packages)






                                share|improve this answer





























                                  2














                                  Our currently workflow:



                                  • git checkout -b feature/sales-api

                                  • git commit add .

                                  • git commit -am ""

                                  • git fetch origin

                                  • git rebase origin master

                                  Once is done, rebase your branch to get the newest version of master, then:



                                  • sfdx package:version:create....

                                  Actually we have more than one package in a project. Particularly, I don't like this approach, because if I have only one package by repository we could automate everything.
                                  Eg. after commit on develop/ build a version and install in the UAT.
                                  after commit on master/ build a new version/ update the release doc and install in production.



                                  (Currently we have 35 packages)






                                  share|improve this answer



























                                    2












                                    2








                                    2







                                    Our currently workflow:



                                    • git checkout -b feature/sales-api

                                    • git commit add .

                                    • git commit -am ""

                                    • git fetch origin

                                    • git rebase origin master

                                    Once is done, rebase your branch to get the newest version of master, then:



                                    • sfdx package:version:create....

                                    Actually we have more than one package in a project. Particularly, I don't like this approach, because if I have only one package by repository we could automate everything.
                                    Eg. after commit on develop/ build a version and install in the UAT.
                                    after commit on master/ build a new version/ update the release doc and install in production.



                                    (Currently we have 35 packages)






                                    share|improve this answer















                                    Our currently workflow:



                                    • git checkout -b feature/sales-api

                                    • git commit add .

                                    • git commit -am ""

                                    • git fetch origin

                                    • git rebase origin master

                                    Once is done, rebase your branch to get the newest version of master, then:



                                    • sfdx package:version:create....

                                    Actually we have more than one package in a project. Particularly, I don't like this approach, because if I have only one package by repository we could automate everything.
                                    Eg. after commit on develop/ build a version and install in the UAT.
                                    after commit on master/ build a new version/ update the release doc and install in production.



                                    (Currently we have 35 packages)







                                    share|improve this answer














                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer








                                    edited Mar 26 at 14:13









                                    Raul

                                    12k31841




                                    12k31841










                                    answered Mar 26 at 13:39









                                    Diéffrei QuadrosDiéffrei Quadros

                                    211




                                    211



























                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded
















































                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to Salesforce Stack Exchange!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid


                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function ()
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f255333%2fefficiently-merge-handle-parallel-feature-branches-in-sfdx%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                                        He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                                        Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029