3 ms·
That sounds like it allows for feature branches to me. Edit: anyway, isn't that extremely pedantic? I've known literally hundreds of companies that say "we ar
by hashkb 10y ago
That sounds like it allows for feature branches to me.
Edit: anyway, isn't that extremely pedantic? I've known literally hundreds of companies that say "we are using CI" when what they mean is "master is continuously tested + deployed"... is there a name for that we should all start using? I'm not trying to diminish the awesomeness of "real" CD that some of you out there appear to be doing and proud of preserving the term for.
- qwer 10y agoIt does, but feature branches become pretty useless at that point. It makes a lot less sense to have a branch for something you plan to merge immediately after the first commit (though my team actually does this just to take advantage of github's PR functionality).
- lotyrin 10y agoTBD as described here also allows for feature branches (but they must be short lived and owned/worked on by a single developer -- which seems reasonable to me). I think people are seeing TBD as "no-branches ever" and that is not it's goal or design.