3 ms·
I find branches really easy for ensuring QA. I work on a branch, raise a merge request to master, let my colleague do a check and point out any issues and then
by AndrewDucker 9y ago
I find branches really easy for ensuring QA.
I work on a branch, raise a merge request to master, let my colleague do a check and point out any issues and then merge it once we're both happy with it. He does the same thing for me to check.
Other than that, no branches.
- contingencies 9y agoWhatever works. However, I am not keen on such hoops. Objectively, relative to "just commit to master" that is a pretty high overhead contribution process. It is not immediate, needs to wait for another human to be around and mentally present, demands some sort of QA standards are created and commonly understood, and creates the need to make and manage a forum for listing and discussing merge requests. You could get some of the way and retain instant feedback with automated tests, yet remove a lot of the overhead.