Merge conflicts
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Oh god please tell me this isn't a real thing
-
This post did not contain any content.
I mean... Yeah, if it's in production just merge with its data. What sense does it make to even put another branch in prod?
-
This post did not contain any content.
We use main now
-
We use main now
Same here. Though it makes sense as we also cut a āreleaseā branch that aid what goes to production and itās behind protections against rogue PRs/commits so devs canāt just push there, the process must be followed. āMainā is for devs. āReleaseā is for prod. āMasterā didnāt really jive with that layout so itās gone.
-
We use main now
I'm glad I'm not part of "we"
-
I mean... Yeah, if it's in production just merge with its data. What sense does it make to even put another branch in prod?
Might just be a workflow thing with a small group or singular dev. Sense is largely irrelevant in the face of āIāve been doing it this way since 15 years before github came onlineā
-
We use main now
Can we get a meme about calling it main, effectively master but not granting it the title of master? That's where I thought this one was going.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I currently have to do a deployment at $DAYJOB and recently, I made a larger change which is completely broken, but also it's slightly less broken than before, I think, so we do actually have that on the
mainbranch. š« -
I'm glad I'm not part of "we"
Why do you care
-
This post did not contain any content.
We have a
deployedbranch. It doesn't get merged intomasteruntil it gets reviewed... the technical debt got too big so it never gets reviewed and we just keep branching offdeployed -
I mean... Yeah, if it's in production just merge with its data. What sense does it make to even put another branch in prod?
It could be a temporary hot fix to pass some issue in production, but could break other things if left longer. So better to revert it after the big issue had passed and take more time to work on a proper solution.
-
Same here. Though it makes sense as we also cut a āreleaseā branch that aid what goes to production and itās behind protections against rogue PRs/commits so devs canāt just push there, the process must be followed. āMainā is for devs. āReleaseā is for prod. āMasterā didnāt really jive with that layout so itās gone.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]similarly, I use
masterandstable, it helps that PRs default tomaster, making changes tostablemore intentional. -
Why do you care
Because this whole discussion is fucking stupid. There was no good reason for a change.
-
Oh god please tell me this isn't a real thing
I could. But I'd prefer not to lie
-
Oh god please tell me this isn't a real thing
Still in school?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Seals are Good has ruined me. I read all this in that channel's voices."The Twi'lek thinker Thom Ashobbes outlined that the first priority of government..."
-
Still in school?
Iāve been a dev at 8 places over 28 years and have never heard of this level of incompetence since git came along. Prior to git, with cvs, svn, tfs, vss - yeah, lots of incompetence because the tools sucked. Git solves all those problems tho!
-
Because this whole discussion is fucking stupid. There was no good reason for a change.
I like the actual look of the word "main" more than I do the word "master". I think it's because it looks like a neat semi-circle
-
Because this whole discussion is fucking stupid. There was no good reason for a change.
You doth protest too much. Wonder why
