I am new to Bitbucket but not to Git. In my previous jobs we only used local branches and merged into origin/master after approval of our code.
With remote branching I noticed we accumulate a lot of branches that have been merged.
What are best practices on keeping all these branches around? Should I just delete them when merging? Seems like if you want a feature you can just pick the commit out, but branches help group many commits together, etc...
I definitely clean up my branches after they've been merged in.
With bitbucket, the historical information about branches is stored there; I don't need them cluttering my branch list, and when I look at a coworker's fork, ideally I'd like only to see the branches of their current active development. If I'm trying to look at some code on their branch, I want to be able to look through just a few currently active branches, and not every feature or fix they've ever started work on.
The only reason you might have for not deleting a branch post-merge is so you know where a given feature ended, but merge commits (and
git merge --no-ff if you really want) make that irrelevant.
We are excited to announce the open beta program for self-hosted runners. Bitbucket Pipelines Runners is available to everyone. Please try it and let us know your feedback. If you have any issue...
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!Find an event
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!
Unfortunately there are no Community Events near you at the moment.Host an event
You're one step closer to meeting fellow Atlassian users at your local event. Learn more about Community Events