GitHub Community
Disable "Squash and merge" on some specific branches #10809
Replies: 418 comments 106 replies
-
|
+1. same exact use case. there are so many options in the "Branch protection rules" I was surprised this wasn't one of them (and also it seems like a good place to hang this feature) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
responce #128528 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1 We want to enforce We have resorted to using memes to try to get everyone to remember to apply the right merge type for the right branch:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@jackhodkinson how can i support this meme based on the merge type 🤔 ? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
FWIW the actual solution is probably to swear off github's merge button and use automated integration (whether via github workflows or an external tool). As long as humans need to perform contextual optional actions (in the sense that there is no way to set the merge button as not having a default method, so you can always click the button and it'll do something) there will be errors. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Haha thanks I'm stealing this for our docs. I used the azure product briefly and it had much better customisation of this stuff. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I done wrote this. https://github.com/san1t1/github-squash-merge-preventer-chrome-extension |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1 This seems like a pretty normal use case. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
me too |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1 I really would like to set merging strategies per branch – same way as it is possible now for the whole repository. For benchmark: Azure Repositories does it really well. Other things are far worse, but this is where they're superior in my opinion. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1 Our team would like to configure merge strategy for each branch separately as well |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We have the same use case as some users above and we run into the same issues in our business unit. We really need an ability to set merge strategies per branch(s), ideally in-branch protection rules rather than for the whole repo. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, this keeps biting us as well. GitHub... please hear our cries! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Or at least some response from GitHub about why this is not possible or recommended? 🤷 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
ok |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Branch protection rules appears to be the right place to define this. Github, please reach out if you are looking for beta testers for this feature request. ;-) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks a lot those who showed interests in this feature request! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @makotoshimazu, can you share the source code of the GitHub Action? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I hope this helps: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This would be a great feature. The number of times people on our team accidentally squash merge to master, then I'm forced to resolve conflicts on develop...urgh! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It persists the button as whatever last one you used, which makes this really easy to flub. Then the poor sucker who has to do the next merge into the deploy branch has a mess to unravel. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Seriously, the merge type dropdown should persist by target branch, not across all branches. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yeah, this feature would be great. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
yes please allow specify merge strategy per branch protection rule... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Seems so simple, it is a form of protecting the branch anyway. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1 exact same use case. Surprising that it hasn't been considered for so long. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1. We've been promoting branches associated with environments so dev->stg->prod and it would be great to enforce squash merge into dev and disable squash merge for stg and prod. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1 need this |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This would be great. 🙌🙌 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1 we definitely have the same use case |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In the interest of getting an official response from GitHub, I am tagging the leadership team: @ashtom, @mariorod I imagine they lose customers every day to GitLab because of this very issue. What is the issue?Users need to restrict what kinds of PR merge are allowed depending on the target branch, not as a global repo setting like it currently is. How can it be fixed?Simply add a branch protection rule setting that allows restricting the PR merge type. User Story 1Millions of people use GitHub branches to represent deployment environments. They want the following:
This ensures that each commit in each environment has the same hash, while also preventing bedlam in the dev branch from people who don't understand what squashing is. User Story 2Many people use "staging" branches to test multiple features/changes before mering into They want the following:
This ensures that PRs into |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks for all the feedback here, I really appreciate it. We’ve been discussing this topic for a while and how to address this with repository rules as the way to limit which merge methods are available per branch. We’ll be back soon to share a link to a new public roadmap item for this with details around timing and the plans to address this gap. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The public roadmap is getting revamped soon, so while that is happening I didn't want to delay getting a response back. We are planning to have engineering start on this before the end of the calendar year. It's far enough out committing to delivery dates is hard. As I have more clarity on dates and early access I'll be back to share more.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@patrick-knight when you start trying to fix this you may also run into this other long-standing critical GitHub bug: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Can I request that labels are also allowed to restrict/enable allowed merge types. https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia uses a "don't squash" label to indicate that the default squash should not be used. It'd be nice to be able to enforce that by label presence. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I know it's better to have this feature in the backend, but for anyone okay with a frontend solution to avoid mistakes when merging PRs, I've built an extension. I use squash for all branches except when merging into master, but sometimes I make mistakes in the process. The extension lets you customize settings for repos, source/destination branches, and merge options. Feel free to check it out, and I'd appreciate any feedback or suggestions! https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/github-pr-merge-strategy/nhejampjhfhnalboieehcfhehmmfljhg |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@sharmadhiraj |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
and others
-
Hi,
I'm now building a deploy workflow for a monorepo, and trying to set up a CI workflow triggered by a push to a special branch (like
production) for deployment. We currently merge regular PRs to the main branch using "Squash and merge" by enabling "Require linear history" option, and merging "deploy" PRs to the production branch with "Create a merge commit" in order to avoid unexpected divergent.It works, but not perfect because "Squash and merge" button is present when merging a PR to the production branch.
As far as I searched, I couldn't find a good way to enforce developers to use "Create a merge commit".
Is there a good way to achieve that?
So far, I could find a stackoverflow saying it's not possible.
Thanks in advance!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions