+1 to protect main. This has happened before and I want to but in a control to stop it.
-1 to the other branches that Rahul listed for the reasons he gave. On 2026/10/14 18:45:25 Rahul Goswami wrote: > +1 to protection on main, limited to PR-only merges. > I'd leave out the other branches (branch_9x, branch_10x, etc) from this > policy though since we often backport. Creating/reviewing/merging a PR for > each backport would be cumbersome. Also, I know David's backporting skill > takes care of the backports with the labels, so not sure how that'd play > with branch protection. > > - Rahul > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 2:26 PM Andrzej Białecki <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > It’s easy to make some missteps and accidentally push stuff that you don’t > > intend to branches that you didn’t intent to push to ;) > > > > We already forbid force push on all branches (at least I hope so?). I > > propose to put also a protection lock on all branches (maybe except the > > active release branches to make the RM’s job somewhat easier). In practical > > terms this means that any changes to these branches MUST go through PR > > merges, and direct commits to branches are rejected. > > > > Cheers, > > Andrzej > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
