• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
deus.ex.nova

Best time to commit changes to repo...and branching?

4 posts in this topic

Since I've been working on a fairly large scale project of my own (2D level editor using XNA/Monogame), I've been using version control much more so than in the past, namely Git. I usually commit both when I feel like I've made major progress (several hours of work) in my code and when the code compiles. This doesn't appear to be the best practice, and I wanted to get some opinions of when it is best to commit to the repository. When do you usually commit?

 

Also if I'm just working off of a personal repo, what situations call for branching code? So far the only situation I could think of is when I want to try an alternative implementation in my project, and don't want to mess up already functioning systems. I would like to learn more "best practices" when it comes to utilizing version control. I would love to hear any advice. It's a bonus if someone is able to share Git-specific techniques. biggrin.png

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Git you can use Rebase to clean up your commits before pushing to your remote.

 

http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/codebase/dev/git/clean-commits/

 

 

For branching I like to open up an issue ticket at GitHub for the feature I'm working on, create a new branch with the title 'iss01', then merge the branch to master and close the issue when it's done.

Edited by tp9
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Git you can use Rebase to clean up your commits before pushing to your remote.

 

http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/codebase/dev/git/clean-commits/

 

 

For branching I like to open up an issue ticket at GitHub for the feature I'm working on, create a new branch with the title 'iss01', then merge the branch to master and close the issue when it's done.

 

What a great resource. It answered so many questions, and some I didn't even expect. Thanks! :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another item to consider is looking into GitFlow.  It is not a part of git itself and is just a way to work which survives in complex dev environments.  See: http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ for more information.  It is pretty similar to how we ended up doing things on some insane large projects I've worked on but with the addition of some scripts: https://github.com/nvie/gitflow#readme, it makes things fairly easy compared to our adhock methods in Perforce.  An added benefit, if you happen to use Os X, SourceTree (my favorite git front end for OsX) integrates the scripts directly.  Point and click git flow is really sweet.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another item to consider is looking into GitFlow.  It is not a part of git itself and is just a way to work which survives in complex dev environments.  See: http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ for more information.  It is pretty similar to how we ended up doing things on some insane large projects I've worked on but with the addition of some scripts: https://github.com/nvie/gitflow#readme, it makes things fairly easy compared to our adhock methods in Perforce.  An added benefit, if you happen to use Os X, SourceTree (my favorite git front end for OsX) integrates the scripts directly.  Point and click git flow is really sweet.

 

Wow, GitFlow makes working with development branches really nice. I've been using GitExtensions because it provides an easy interface for git and I like how it presents the repository graph. I noticed that there's a request to integrate GitFlow into GitExtensions, but it doesn't seem like anyone is trying to implement it. While GitFlow would be really nice to use, I'd rather stick to GitExtensions for now than go back to using the command line for Git. So far I'm really the only one working on this project, so I'm the only one modifying my repo. I will of course adopt the same branching model into my project though. Also I'm certainly open to recommendations for other Git GUI extensions, especially if they have has successfully integrated GitFlow.

 

*EDIT*
It seems like SourceTree (http://sourcetreeapp.com/) has already integrated GitFlow into it's Mac version, and are working to get their Windows (beta) version up to speed. They're not quite there though, so I guess I'll just stick with GitExtensions for now. I also came across an article by Scott Chacon, where he talks about an alternative version control scheme to GitFlow. His team uses it at GitHub. Here's the link for anyone interested: http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html. I *think* the GitFlow model still seems more fitting for my project though...
 

Also although I'm writing an editor, I'm also building engine code in the same solution. I ended up having separate local repos for each project in the solution. Is it recommended to have one unifying repo instead? It would definitely make keeping track of changes much easier (since there would only be one repo to commit to), but I don't know if there's a big negative that I haven't thought of.

Edited by Robot Ninja
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0