Tagging is also the key to solve your original problem: if you establish that any branch merged to the "work" branches can and should be deleted, and that any one that is merged to a version tag, "production", etc. Of course no history management (pull requests or otherwise) replaces proper tagging of versions (which you preferably automate with the same tool/script that deploys/packages a version), so you can always fast-switch to whatever your users happen to be on at a given moment. My current work team, for example, prunes all branches that are not master or deployment-related (e.g., production, staging, etc.) as soon as their pull requests gets merged, and we still have full tracking of how the related commits formed each incremental improvement of each product. This is so commonplace that recently Github added a (sweet) feature that pops a "delete branch" button right after you merge a pull request.īut it is worth noticing that each group should adopt the workflow that suits it best (and it may or may not lead to deleting such branches). ![]() Since the question has the "github" tag, I'd also add this: specifically in Github, if you pull-request a branch and it gets merged (either via the UI or by merging the pull request's branch), you won't lose the pull request data (including comments), even if you remove the branch.Ī consequence of this: If you incorporate pull requests as a part of your workflow (which blends sweetly with code reviews), you can safely delete branches as soon as they get merged.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |