I would like to protect master, and also set squash merge only.

[sous-chefs]

I would like to protect master, and also set squash merge only.

[damacus]

From Slack

• Protected Master
• At least one review from another party
• We should fix the build if the tests are red.
• Squash Merging is OK on a per repo basis.
  The idea here, is to get clean understandable updates, and good git history.
  Rather than hiding a mess under the carpet.

[tas50]

If you think you're doing too much you can squash a bit. I think it's useful to see the progression. I hit git history a lot to try to figure out why particular lines where changes and it's really hard when you see something like "drop this giant 500 line feature commit".

[tas50]

I'm all for turning on protected branches on master. I'm not a fan of squash merges though. You lose the history of where the commit actually came from. I know a lot of people like them for the straight up down history they provide visually, but you're getting that because you're losing information.

[tas50]

Protected branch with required Travis pass and forced reviews are enabled now

[rshade]

awesome, thank you. @tas50. I am with you on history, I am also not afraid to say I have to make a lot of commits to get stuff right. I am for either, do we want to just merge and not squash, or take it on a case by case basis?

[lock]

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.