4 ms·
Protected Branches Improvements
- venantius 11y agoThis is huge. We've wanted to use protected branches ever since they were announced but haven't been able to because we have hundreds of contributors merging to our primary branch every day.
- ctruzzi 11y agoThis is great! We've been using protected branches with 100+ developers contributing and often face the out of date branch issue as our GIT implementors didn't realize this would be an issue until it was too late.
- TomBombadildoze 11y agoAAAARRRHGGHGRHRRRHGHGH FINALLY I was crushed when they added support for protected branches but didn't include per-user permissions.
- pcl 11y agoI can't wait for this to land in the enterprise edition. We go through some pretty convoluted steps to maintain branch protection while still allowing issues to be edited.
- snambi 11y agoAny idea when this will be available in the enterprise edition?
- wilg 11y agoStrange you can't disallow pushing directly to master still.
- danielsju6 11y agoYou can protect master; it disallows pushes.
- shizcakes 11y agoI want people to be able to merge via the Github PR flow, just not push directly without going through a PR. That doesn't seem possible from the blog post?
- web007 11y agoI want this too. It's possible to make it happen, but it's not easy like basic protection. The protected branch behavior has two components to it. The primary protection is to prevent force-push to a branch, usually master. That one is a no-brainer. The secondary behavior (AFAIK) is to enforce exactly what you are looking for, where you have to push to a branch before merging to master. The only way to make that happen is to integrate tests - if your branch passes tests, it can be merged. In my "copious free time" I plan to build a test hook that always reports "OK" so that I can enable that behavior on all of my repos, and it should end up as two or three clicks to set it up.