100 lines
No EOL
6.5 KiB
JSON
100 lines
No EOL
6.5 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "394246dc-42f8-4fbd-987c-7b62c47b9f06"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"type": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_id": "daily_email",
|
|
"target_type": "node_type",
|
|
"target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_timestamp": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:55+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": "Why I like trunk-based development"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2022-09-20T00:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"changed": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:55+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"promote": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"sticky": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"default_langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_translation_affected": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"path": [
|
|
{
|
|
"alias": "\/daily\/2022\/09\/20\/why-like-trunk-based-development",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "\n <p>For the majority of my software development career, I've worked with version control in a very similar way.<\/p>\n\n<p>There are one or two long-lived branches, usually a combination of <code>develop<\/code>, <code>master<\/code> or <code>main<\/code>, that contain the production version of the code. When starting work on a new feature or bug fix, a new branch is created where the changes are made in isolation, and is submitted for review once complete. This is typically referred to as \"Git Flow\" or \"GitHub Flow\".<\/p>\n\n<p>Whilst those changes are awaiting review, a new task is started and the process is repeated.<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"trunk-based-development\">Trunk-based development<\/h2>\n\n<p>Something that I've been practicing and advocating for lately is trunk-based development, where there's only one branch that everyone works on, and commits and pushes to instead of creating separate per-task branches.<\/p>\n\n<p>Even on a client project where I was the only Developer, I was used to creating per-task branches and I can recall when trying to demo two features to a client and the application broke when switching between branches.<\/p>\n\n<p>The vast majority of the time, whether working individually or on a team, I've found that the per-task branches weren't needed and working on a single branch was easier and simpler.<\/p>\n\n<p>There are still occassions when a temporary branch is needed, but in general, all changes are made to the single branch.<\/p>\n\n<p>Trunk-based development ties in nicely with the continuous integration approach, where everyone commits and pushes their work at least once a day - ideally, multiple times a day. This eliminates long-running feature or bug fix branches that get out of sync with the main branch as well as conflicting with each other.<\/p>\n\n<p>It seemed scary to begin with, having been used to per-task branches and asynchronous peer reviews via pull or merge requests, but trunk-based development has made things simpler and encourages other best practices such as pair and mob programming. having a good CI pipeline to identify regressions, using feature flags to separate code deployments from feature releases, and frequent code integration and deployment via continuous commits and pushes.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>For the majority of my software development career, I've worked with version control in a very similar way.<\/p>\n\n<p>There are one or two long-lived branches, usually a combination of <code>develop<\/code>, <code>master<\/code> or <code>main<\/code>, that contain the production version of the code. When starting work on a new feature or bug fix, a new branch is created where the changes are made in isolation, and is submitted for review once complete. This is typically referred to as \"Git Flow\" or \"GitHub Flow\".<\/p>\n\n<p>Whilst those changes are awaiting review, a new task is started and the process is repeated.<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"trunk-based-development\">Trunk-based development<\/h2>\n\n<p>Something that I've been practicing and advocating for lately is trunk-based development, where there's only one branch that everyone works on, and commits and pushes to instead of creating separate per-task branches.<\/p>\n\n<p>Even on a client project where I was the only Developer, I was used to creating per-task branches and I can recall when trying to demo two features to a client and the application broke when switching between branches.<\/p>\n\n<p>The vast majority of the time, whether working individually or on a team, I've found that the per-task branches weren't needed and working on a single branch was easier and simpler.<\/p>\n\n<p>There are still occassions when a temporary branch is needed, but in general, all changes are made to the single branch.<\/p>\n\n<p>Trunk-based development ties in nicely with the continuous integration approach, where everyone commits and pushes their work at least once a day - ideally, multiple times a day. This eliminates long-running feature or bug fix branches that get out of sync with the main branch as well as conflicting with each other.<\/p>\n\n<p>It seemed scary to begin with, having been used to per-task branches and asynchronous peer reviews via pull or merge requests, but trunk-based development has made things simpler and encourages other best practices such as pair and mob programming. having a good CI pipeline to identify regressions, using feature flags to separate code deployments from feature releases, and frequent code integration and deployment via continuous commits and pushes.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"feeds_item": [
|
|
{
|
|
"imported": "1970-01-01T00:32:50+00:00",
|
|
"guid": null,
|
|
"hash": "5297a15011e2b7e487d8a29171c25b19",
|
|
"target_type": "feeds_feed",
|
|
"target_uuid": "90c85284-7ca8-4074-9178-97ff8384fe76"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |