The most troubling feature new developers to DVCS need to realize is about the publication process:
- you can import (fetch/pull) whatever remote repo you need
- you can publish (push) to any (bare) repo you want
From that, you can respect a few rules to make your questions easier:
Now:
Workflows / branching models:
each workflow is there to support a release management process, and that is tailored for each project.
What I can add to the workflow you mention is: each developer should not create a feature branch, only a "current dev" branch, because the truth is: the developer often doesn't know what exactly his/her branch will produce: one feature, several (because it ended up being too complex a feature), none (because not ready in time for release), another feature (because the original one had "morphed"),...
Only an "integrator" should established official feature branches on a "central" repo, which can then be fetched by developers to rebase/merge the part of their work that fits that feature.
Merging vs rebasing (tangled vs sequential history):
I like my answer you mention ("Workflow description for git usage for in-house development")
I am looking for a natural workflow:
for fixes, it can help associating each fix with a ticket from a bug tracking, which helps the developer remember where (i.e. on which branch, i.e. a dedicated branch "for fixes") he/she should commit such modifications.
Then hooks can help protect a central repo against pushes from non-validated bug-fixes or from branches from which one shouldn't push. (no specific solution here, all this need to be adapted to your environment)
How to avoid creating merge conflicts (due to cherry-pick)?
As stated by Jakub Narębski in his answer, cherry-picking should be reserved for rare situations where it is required.
If your setup involves a lot of cherry-picking (i.e. "it is not rare"), then something is off.
Would applying the same commit in revert (how to do this?)
git revert should take care of that, but that is not ideal.
How to decompose into topical branches?
As long as a branch as not yet been pushed everywhere, a developer should reorganize its history of commits (once he/she finally see the development takes a more definitive and stable shape) into:
- several branches if needed (one by clear identified feature)
- a coherent set of commits within one branch (see Trimming Git Checkins)
Proper procedures like code review and graduating ?
Integration branches (in a dedicated integration) repo can help the developer to:
- rebase his/her development on top of that remote integration branch (pull --rebase)
- solve locally
- push the development to that repo
- check with the integrator that doesn't result in a mess ;)
I was just setting up the Beta testing release for the first time and couldn't make the app visible in Play Store. Found the reason in Play Console Help:
After publishing an alpha/beta app for the first time, it may take a few hours for your test link to be available to testers. If you publish additional changes, they may take several hours to be available for testers.
After about 35 minutes the app was published.
As this might not be the issue mentioned in original question, it might help someone.
Best Answer
Virtual machines (VMWare Workstation, etc.) can be useful for testing clean installs of applications. You can start up a new virtual OS, install your stuff, test it, then delete the VM when you're done. There are ways to automate the spinning-up of a VM as well, which can make your life even easier.
Another thing to do is to determine all the prerequisites your app requires, and add checks for these things at startup. If something is not setup right, you can either attempt to set it up within your code, or inform the user to do it.