Can you explain “commits into master”? I thought you make a feature branch, do countless commits to it, then either merge or rebase into master. Where does the number of commits into master come Into play?

I’m guilty of doing things wrong.

Let’s say the cto has said no merge to master until after n days. I have a few defects that I need to work on that are in the same files. Ideally, one should make a different branch for each defect. However, I’ll have to deal with merge conflicts when I merge to master next week. So, I put multiple defects in the same branch and put tracking information in commit message for example

Use break word in result table

Since we allow first names to be up to a hundred characters in length, the table should stay within the constraints in its container even with a hundred no space characters For #4007

—

As you can imagine this isn’t ideal on multiple levels.

First, a merge request should only address one concern. That being said, the problem pretty much lies somewhere else.

The second follows the first. Assuming the first, we should be able to squash all commits in the feature branch without losing information.

I’m sure this is a common problem but I’ve not heard of a good solution to it so far. I’d love to hear what I should do differently.

> Let’s say the cto has said no merge to master until after n days.

This seems like the problem you should address first.

Failed to meet deadline for release (not enough confidence that we can release without regressions) so release got pushed to next release window which is n - 1 days from now.

I imagine ideally we should use tags for release but for some reason we don't do that.

So it's the notion that commits should be squashed before merging into master, rather than merging all N commits from the branch into master.