84 lines
3.4 KiB
YAML
84 lines
3.4 KiB
YAML
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: { }
|