5 ms·
> This change only affects newly created repos, how does it create tech debt? I suppose some tooling may need to be updated, but if your tools are to brittle to
by rrook 6y ago
> This change only affects newly created repos, how does it create tech debt? I suppose some tooling may need to be updated, but if your tools are to brittle to support a different branch name.. sheesh
This is overly dismissive. Build pipelines that interact with bespoke branches now need dynamism for backwards compatibility; a value that was previously static is now changeable. That doesn't really qualify as brittle to me; that any value in a codebase must be changeable is a ridiculous requirement from a codebase.
- mathgorges 6y agoCan you give me a real example? I work with build systems in my day-to-day, and I can't remember the last time I worked with something that didn't support dynamic branch names but did support git But my experience is obviously skewed by where I work.
- rrook 6y agoI'm specifically thinking of git-flow (https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/); https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/); every build system I've interacted with has been some flavor of this. The crux here is that there is a single branch that deploys occur from. Not uncommonly, this is the default branch.
- mathgorges 6y agoSure, I defo have opinions on git-flow. But with every build system I work with (which are: Jenkins, Concourse, Github Actions, and Gitlab CI) you can make any branch you want the branch-to-build-on.
- rrook 6y agoI don't mean to say that it's not totally fixable. Up until this change, it was a reasonable assumption for any org to make, that the default branch will be the same for all projects. Now, either the default branch on any new repo must be manually set to the old default, or the build system must be updated to handle non homogenous default branches.
- Izkata 6y agoDon't forget documentation. Massive amounts of tutorials and FAQs will now be more confusing to newbies.