91 lines
No EOL
4.1 KiB
JSON
91 lines
No EOL
4.1 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"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": "\n <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>\n\n<p>This usually resulted in a group of changes pushed to the UAT environment, waiting for the client to test them.<\/p>\n\n<p>They would, and then decide which changes they wanted to be moved to production.<\/p>\n\n<p>Maybe changes 1, 2 and 4 would be asked to be deployed, but not 3 or 5.<\/p>\n\n<p>Someone would then cherry pick the relevant commits onto the mainline branch and deploy them to production.<\/p>\n\n<p>But, if the code isn't the same as on that UAT environment, how do you know it still works?<\/p>\n\n<p>Could a commit have been missed or could not including a non-selected commit have caused a regression or unintended side effects?<\/p>\n\n<p><code>git cherry-pick<\/code> isn't a command I use often, and definitely not in this scenario.<\/p>\n\n<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>\n\n<p>You push all the commits from UAT to production and enable the feature flags for the things you want to release.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <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>\n\n<p>This usually resulted in a group of changes pushed to the UAT environment, waiting for the client to test them.<\/p>\n\n<p>They would, and then decide which changes they wanted to be moved to production.<\/p>\n\n<p>Maybe changes 1, 2 and 4 would be asked to be deployed, but not 3 or 5.<\/p>\n\n<p>Someone would then cherry pick the relevant commits onto the mainline branch and deploy them to production.<\/p>\n\n<p>But, if the code isn't the same as on that UAT environment, how do you know it still works?<\/p>\n\n<p>Could a commit have been missed or could not including a non-selected commit have caused a regression or unintended side effects?<\/p>\n\n<p><code>git cherry-pick<\/code> isn't a command I use often, and definitely not in this scenario.<\/p>\n\n<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>\n\n<p>You push all the commits from UAT to production and enable the feature flags for the things you want to release.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |