|
| ▲ | distances a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| What. Strict branch naming like feature/, bugfix/, chore/, release/ has been the standard for probably 10 years now in all projects I've been in, often enforced by auto-rejecting pushes that don't comply. |
| |
| ▲ | johnsuder 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've used that style in 3 different companies over the last 10 years and I assumed the technique was ubiquitous. This just goes to show the standard deviation in engineering culture is high. There are some large bodies of water but also lots and lots of little isolated tide pools. | |
| ▲ | croon 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, we've had our CI only run pipelines on proper branch prefixes for many years, so if you for whatever reason had a wip/branch you wouldn't clog up our runners. | |
| ▲ | vips7L a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Never used it in any of the projects I’ve been on. | |
| ▲ | sixothree 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And now that pattern is even more popular. I'm glad you were here first though. Because that's special isn't it. |
|
|
| ▲ | ben_w 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Related to code quality, I've noticed developers picking up tricks from AI. Like using feature/xxxxx as the branch name. Last year exactly zero developers used this convention. Huh. I've been using that convention for ages, but I have to remind Claude on new projects to actually use git in the first place, and then also specifically tell it to use branches. Then again, I was using em-dashes before they got un-cool. |
| |
| ▲ | sixothree an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure why you're arguing that when it's not the point of the statement. YOU have been using that convention. Now do an analysis of the people at your company. Regex the pattern over time if you want to make an argument against my supporting example. |
|
|
| ▲ | MiscCompFacts a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this comes from Conventional Branching, https://conventionalbranch.org, inspired by conventional commits (e.g. https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) |
| |
| ▲ | sixothree an hour ago | parent [-] | | And my point is that this pattern is now more popular than it was 3 years ago. Similar to people using the phrase "load bearing". For me, this popularity is graphable. Telling me it's a convention doesn't change that fact. I'm sorry. |
|
|
| ▲ | rawling a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've been using it at work since we moved from TF source control to TF-Git, close to a decade ago. feature/ticketno, release/number and user/initials/... TF at least gave a nice folder view on the branches screen, which we've lost now we've moved to GitHub, but it has made it easier to enforce. |
| |
| ▲ | sixothree 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think gitkraken is the only tool I use that presents it that way currently. It's a good convention. |
|
|
| ▲ | HeyLaughingBoy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this is just a Jira/bitbucket thing. If you add a feature branch, that's how the naming convention defaults. I've been seeing it for years. |
| |
| ▲ | jaredsohn 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Linear does this, too. It provides a button that copies a branch name to the clipboard based on the ticket id/name. | |
| ▲ | sixothree a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I assumed the convention came from somewhere before AI and maybe one of the new devs brought it in from there. We also have an analyst who used em-dashes before AI ruined them, and who justifiably complains about that every so often. I'm not sure that's a trend anyone wants to pick up on. But for branches in addition to Feature/, we're seeing Hotfix/, Modernization/, you name it. If you're parking branches for a long time without completing them, I'm 100% appreciative they're categorized. | | |
| ▲ | WorldMaker a day ago | parent [-] | | The original git flow suggestion [0] was posted more than 15 years ago (date on the post is 2010). It didn't entirely invent the branch names/conventions from whole cloth, it was based on plenty of prior history in SVN spaces especially, which it picked up from CVS. (Personally, for long term parked branches I prefer `{username/dev name}/` branches because then you know who the owner is without having to look at the commit log and guess based on recent commit authors. But that's the fun thing about branching conventions, there are so many to choose from, many of which have been around forever.) [0] https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | spacechild1 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Like using feature/xxxxx as the branch name. Last year exactly zero developers used this convention. People have been doing this for years. |
| |
| ▲ | sixothree 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > People have been doing this for years. Tell me something I don't know. My point is that it's usage has seen a _measurable_ increase where I work over the last two years. I don't think I have a single "feature/*" branch before 2024. Developer names, feature names, sure. But specifically feature/, no. |
|
|
| ▲ | dv_dt 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Feat/ or dev-initials/ or fix/ all very common pre-ai in my companies |
| |
| ▲ | sixothree an hour ago | parent [-] | | If you use "Feat/" at my company you will get called out. No abbreviations allowed. Capitalization matters. But that doesn't change my argument. For me, this popularity is graphable. Telling me it's a convention doesn't change that fact. I'm sorry. |
|
|
| ▲ | bluefirebrand a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Like using feature/xxxxx as the branch name. Last year exactly zero developers used this convention. The AI learned it from somewhere though, it didn't come up with it on its own |
