4 ms·
It was tested. It's simply that between the time you pushed on your branch, and the time you merged, many other commits made it to the master branch, potentiall
by byroot 7y ago
It was tested. It's simply that between the time you pushed on your branch, and the time you merged, many other commits made it to the master branch, potentially breaking your branch.
- pojzon 7y agoThat pretty much forces tooling to try to rebase and run CI either way ? If it cannot rebase its up to the developer to fix his branch. Master should be always in a state of release at any moment. I just cannot imagine it was an unknown practice for some.
- byroot 7y agoExcept that with the amount of activity on the repo it's simply impossible. Every new merge on master would require to rebase several hundred branches being worked on or awaiting reviewed. Multiply this with the hundreds of commits merged on master every day and you end up with way too much CI jobs to run.
- pojzon 7y agoIts not impossible.. thats what they ended up with either way.. And how do I know its possible ? Well I have over 2000 developers working on the same codebase in my current company. I work as a devops and this conversation is stupid..