I have, however, seen many git trees that are a complete mess to grok because of merges into feature branches.
When I worked at a large FAANG they enforced only one commit from a feature branch into master. I didn't realise why that was a good idea until I saw the alternatives ;)
Let’s say the cto has said no merge to master until after n days. I have a few defects that I need to work on that are in the same files. Ideally, one should make a different branch for each defect. However, I’ll have to deal with merge conflicts when I merge to master next week. So, I put multiple defects in the same branch and put tracking information in commit message for example
Use break word in result table
Since we allow first names to be up to a hundred characters in length, the table should stay within the constraints in its container even with a hundred no space characters For #4007
—
As you can imagine this isn’t ideal on multiple levels.
First, a merge request should only address one concern. That being said, the problem pretty much lies somewhere else.
The second follows the first. Assuming the first, we should be able to squash all commits in the feature branch without losing information.
I’m sure this is a common problem but I’ve not heard of a good solution to it so far. I’d love to hear what I should do differently.
This seems like the problem you should address first.
I imagine ideally we should use tags for release but for some reason we don't do that.