3 ms·
He'd need to revert like 400 commits! Woah that's a real messy one. I hope everyone walks away with a feeling that merging 400 commits in what sounds like a CD
by cyberpunk 10y ago
He'd need to revert like 400 commits!
Woah that's a real messy one. I hope everyone walks away with a feeling that merging 400 commits in what sounds like a CD env is asking for trouble...
I'm probably not going to earn extra ninja points here, but in that situation I'd have turned off the deploy jenkins job, force pushed master back to sanity, squashed these commits into a sensible amount in a new branch, rebased it from master and gotten someone (several someones) to go over the pull rq which should be able to merge without conflict. (Fix conflicts in branch!)
Maybe you'll have to get your devs to make a new branch locally and cherry pick their stuff back in, but urgh; I think the solution in the article would have taken me ages to RTFM enough to work it out...
The lesson here is merge less, more often, or pay more attention when doing evil things like this should you get into that kind of situ...
- jdmichal 10y agoIf you don't care about the history, you can just squash the merge. Otherwise, it's not like those commits on the topic branch cost you anything, and they might have important context. I do agree though that my first step would have been merge from master to the topic, or rebase the topic onto master.