Migrate content to YAML

content/node.862ba3ee-9c27-40e6-9e86-a5ce4c1bae67.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+uuid:
+  - value: 862ba3ee-9c27-40e6-9e86-a5ce4c1bae67
+langcode:
+  - value: en
+type:
+  - target_id: daily_email
+    target_type: node_type
+    target_uuid: 8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7
+revision_timestamp:
+  - value: '2025-05-11T09:00:14+00:00'
+revision_uid:
+  - target_type: user
+    target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849
+revision_log: {  }
+status:
+  - value: true
+uid:
+  - target_type: user
+    target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849
+title:
+  - value: "Don't cherry-pick features from a branch to deploy"
+created:
+  - value: '2024-04-26T00:00:00+00:00'
+changed:
+  - value: '2025-05-11T09:00:14+00:00'
+promote:
+  - value: false
+sticky:
+  - value: false
+default_langcode:
+  - value: true
+revision_translation_affected:
+  - value: true
+path:
+  - alias: /daily/2024/04/26/don-t-cherry-pick-features-from-a-branch-to-deploy
+    langcode: en
+body:
+  - value: |
+      <p>I previously worked on a project where, after a code change had been reviewed and merged, it was pushed to a UAT environment for the client to test.</p>
+
+      <p>This usually resulted in a group of changes pushed to the UAT environment, waiting for the client to test them.</p>
+
+      <p>They would, and then decide which changes they wanted to be moved to production.</p>
+
+      <p>Maybe changes 1, 2 and 4 would be asked to be deployed, but not 3 or 5.</p>
+
+      <p>Someone would then cherry pick the relevant commits onto the mainline branch and deploy them to production.</p>
+
+      <p>But, if the code isn't the same as on that UAT environment, how do you know it still works?</p>
+
+      <p>Could a commit have been missed or could not including a non-selected commit have caused a regression or unintended side effects?</p>
+
+      <p><code>git cherry-pick</code> isn't a command I use often, and definitely not in this scenario.</p>
+
+      <p>If you want to select which changes go live, feature flags are a better option as you don't need to change the commits or code you're pushing.</p>
+
+      <p>You push all the commits from UAT to production and enable the feature flags for the things you want to release.</p>
+
+              
+    format: full_html
+    processed: |
+      <p>I previously worked on a project where, after a code change had been reviewed and merged, it was pushed to a UAT environment for the client to test.</p>
+
+      <p>This usually resulted in a group of changes pushed to the UAT environment, waiting for the client to test them.</p>
+
+      <p>They would, and then decide which changes they wanted to be moved to production.</p>
+
+      <p>Maybe changes 1, 2 and 4 would be asked to be deployed, but not 3 or 5.</p>
+
+      <p>Someone would then cherry pick the relevant commits onto the mainline branch and deploy them to production.</p>
+
+      <p>But, if the code isn't the same as on that UAT environment, how do you know it still works?</p>
+
+      <p>Could a commit have been missed or could not including a non-selected commit have caused a regression or unintended side effects?</p>
+
+      <p><code>git cherry-pick</code> isn't a command I use often, and definitely not in this scenario.</p>
+
+      <p>If you want to select which changes go live, feature flags are a better option as you don't need to change the commits or code you're pushing.</p>
+
+      <p>You push all the commits from UAT to production and enable the feature flags for the things you want to release.</p>
+
+              
+    summary: null
+field_daily_email_cta: {  }