docs: switch to dual merge strategy#1119
Conversation
…e to main Replace the single squash-everywhere strategy with a dual approach: - Feature branches → develop: squash merge (one clean commit per feature) - develop → main: regular merge (preserves commit ancestry) This eliminates the post-merge back-sync workflow entirely because regular merging develop into main preserves shared commit history, so the two branches never diverge. Updated files: - .github/copilot-instructions.md - .github/instructions/pull-request.instructions.md - .github/pull_request_template.md - .github/workflows/dependabot-auto-merge.yml (comment clarification) - docs/features/DEVELOPMENT_WORKFLOW.md (added merge strategy section) - docs/features/PROMETHEUS_ROADMAP.md - plan/feature-prometheus-monitoring-1.md
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request refines the repository's Git branching and merging strategy to enhance clarity and efficiency. By adopting a dual merge approach—squash merging feature branches into Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Changelog
Ignored Files
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request effectively transitions the repository from a single squash-merge strategy to a dual strategy, which simplifies the workflow by removing the need for a back-sync after promoting develop to main. The documentation changes are consistent and clear across all updated files. I have one suggestion to further improve the clarity of the new workflow by explicitly documenting the merge strategy for hotfixes.
| | Direction | Strategy | Reason | | ||
| |-----------|----------|--------| | ||
| | Feature branch → `develop` | **Squash merge** | One clean commit per feature/fix on `develop` | | ||
| | `develop` → `main` | **Regular merge** | Preserves shared commit history, no back-sync needed | | ||
| | Dependabot PRs → `develop` | **Squash merge** | Auto-merged with squash (targets `develop` only) | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new merge strategy documentation is clear for feature branches and promotions from develop to main. However, it omits the merge strategy for hotfix branches, which could lead to confusion.
To make the workflow comprehensive, I suggest explicitly documenting the hotfix merge strategy. A squash merge is likely appropriate to maintain a clean history on main. I've added a row to the table for hotfixes and clarified that a sync to develop is still needed in this case, which is consistent with the hotfix process described elsewhere in this document.
| | Direction | Strategy | Reason | | |
| |-----------|----------|--------| | |
| | Feature branch → `develop` | **Squash merge** | One clean commit per feature/fix on `develop` | | |
| | `develop` → `main` | **Regular merge** | Preserves shared commit history, no back-sync needed | | |
| | Dependabot PRs → `develop` | **Squash merge** | Auto-merged with squash (targets `develop` only) | | |
| | Direction | Strategy | Reason | | |
| |-----------|----------|--------| | |
| | Feature branch → `develop` | **Squash merge** | One clean commit per feature/fix on `develop` | | |
| | `develop` → `main` | **Regular merge** | Preserves shared commit history, no back-sync needed | | |
| | Hotfix branch → `main` | **Squash merge** | One clean commit per fix on `main` (requires sync to `develop`) | | |
| | Dependabot PRs → `develop` | **Squash merge** | Auto-merged with squash (targets `develop` only) | |
1 participant
Summary
Replace the single squash-everywhere strategy with a dual approach:
develop: Squash merge (one clean commit per feature)develop→main: Regular merge (preserves commit ancestry, no back-sync needed)This eliminates the post-merge back-sync workflow entirely.
Type of Change
Files Modified
.github/copilot-instructions.md— replaced back-sync section with dual strategy.github/instructions/pull-request.instructions.md— full rewrite of merge strategy section.github/pull_request_template.md— matching rewrite.github/workflows/dependabot-auto-merge.yml— clarified commentdocs/features/DEVELOPMENT_WORKFLOW.md— added merge strategy tabledocs/features/PROMETHEUS_ROADMAP.md— updated task descriptionsplan/feature-prometheus-monitoring-1.md— updated task descriptions