We have a
deployedbranch. It doesn’t get merged intomasteruntil it gets reviewed… the technical debt got too big so it never gets reviewed and we just keep branching offdeployedjesus
Well, when you said “we have a deployed branch”, you could just have stopped there. All the rest is just what happens after you decide to rename your master branch.
We build off develop and only update master once a year or so. Our company also pays 4 V&V engineers, compared to 9 software devs.
After a release cycle, we update master. Master has never, never been built by itself.
Depends on the field you’re in. At my previous company to release a new system for internal use only I had to go through 19 validations(each one 50-100 pages of manual tests). None of it had real source control except uploading final zip of files(no source code, just the enable files).
I wrote all the files, wrote all the test cases, wrote all the documentation, executed everything and wrote most of the reports. They just fired me last week so hope they have fun when they need to update something…
I’m a software engineer, and I don’t even know what a v&v engineer is.
Oh god please tell me this isn’t a real thing
Still in school?
Main* branch.
Don’t want to sound racist
I currently have to do a deployment at $DAYJOB and recently, I made a larger change which is completely broken, but also it’s slightly less broken than before, I think, so we do actually have that on the
mainbranch. 🫠We use main this has been reported to hr
I mean… Yeah, if it’s in production just merge with its data. What sense does it make to even put another branch in prod?
Might just be a workflow thing with a small group or singular dev. Sense is largely irrelevant in the face of “I’ve been doing it this way since 15 years before github came online”
Seals are Good has ruined me. I read all this in that channel’s voices.“The Twi’lek thinker Thom Ashobbes outlined that the first priority of government…” 😄
