4 ms·
> The idea being that you have the project run a build then check that into a "build" branch in git & deploy from there. This doesn't at all solve the OP's pro
by not_kurt_godel 12y ago
> The idea being that you have the project run a build then check that into a "build" branch in git & deploy from there.
This doesn't at all solve the OP's problem, you shouldn't be putting your build under source control in lieu of your source code.
- fat0wl 12y agowell the way that it works in Grunt is actually that you have your source branch and then there is a separate build branch -- so the source is still versioned, but only the artifacts from the "build" branch are presented to public / pushed to your server, whatever. i just appreciate the security builds add. In enterprise coding the paradigm is very simple -- pretty much keep whatever u want in source, but only built artifacts are ever deployed to the servers. In a closed-source setting this is perfect. I understand what you mean though it doesn't really solve the issue of distributed, open-source development. (I guess no one would really make a public repo unless they wanted to share, huh?)