Comment by suddenlybananas
2 days ago
But you can make the branch public without committing to maintaining an experimental branch, this doesn't make sense.
2 days ago
But you can make the branch public without committing to maintaining an experimental branch, this doesn't make sense.
It makes sense. Just because one can do a thing doesn’t mean they must want to do it.
It’s like everyone who squash merges for a clean timeline. You want you dev process to look prestine and communicate what changes were kept, not every experiment that failed.
Have you happen to have seen the 3 commits? They are over 1000 file diffs, that is not pristine or communicating changes the way devs do.
No, it's the old school cathedral "throw code over the wall" style commits that some companies were famous for.
If you've been accused of cheating it is a very different scenario.