That seems reasonable to perform on protected branches, but I'm not a fan of protecting all branches. That could leave valuable code with a single copy on a dev machine. I'd rather have it pushed to an unprotected branch and then be checked on merge instead of push.
kkj
joined 4 months ago
Every branch you have deploys on commit? You have to fully QA all of your code before it goes into any sort of source control?
What do you do if you have code that isn't complete enough to work? Do you have to just leave it untracked?
"He's selling innocent people into slavery, but that's OK because people I don't like are mad about it"
Maybe think about whether they have a valid reason to be angry.
Fix your shit and it won't stop you from committing.
It's also usually only on certain branches, so you can make a branch where you break things and then fix them before you merge to testing/main/whatever.
It's called gunplay!
He's Canadian.
- Make a statement that is at best wildly controversial and at worst blatantly untrue
- Redefine the words in that statement to make it vacuously true and completely uninteresting
- When challenged, say that you don't care about common parlance
- Everyone loses, because this debate is now pointless and annoying
Looks like a graduated cylinder to me on the first one. Second is an odd angle, maybe a selfie stick?
The answers are as follows:
Bill Clinton is on Epstein's list, so the Democrats half-assed the investigation.
Donald Trump is on Epstein's list, so the Republicans stopped the investigation altogether.
Hope this helps!
Bonobos are our closest relatives, after all.
view more: next ›
https://m.youtube.com/@RespecttheDeadPodcast