Note: This question is part of a series of questions that present the same scenario. Each question in the series contains a unique solution that might meet the stated goals. Some question sets might have more than one correct solution, while others might not have a correct solution.
After you answer a question in this section, you will NOT be able to return to it. As a result, these questions will not appear in the review screen.
Your company uses Azure DevOps to manage the build and release processes for applications.
You use a Git repository for applications source control.
You need to implement a pull request strategy that reduces the history volume in the master branch.
Solution: You implement a pull request strategy that uses a three-way merge.
Does this meet the goal?
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B.B
Instead use fast-forward merge.
Note:
No fast-forward merge - This option merges the commit history of the source branch when the pull request closes and creates a merge commit in the target branch.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/repos/git/branch-policiesThe proposed solution of implementing a pull request strategy that uses a three-way merge does not directly address the goal of reducing the history volume in the master branch. Therefore, the answer is B. No.
A three-way merge is a common merge strategy used in Git to combine changes from two branches into a single branch. This strategy works by comparing the changes made in both branches and identifying the common ancestor commit from which both branches originated. The changes made in the two branches are then combined into a new commit, which is added to the branch that initiated the merge.
While a three-way merge can help ensure that changes made in different branches are combined without conflicts, it does not directly address the issue of reducing the history volume in the master branch. Reducing the history volume typically involves removing or consolidating outdated or unnecessary commits from the branch, which may require more advanced Git strategies such as rebasing, squashing, or cherry-picking.
Therefore, to meet the goal of reducing the history volume in the master branch, an alternative solution may need to be considered, such as implementing a Git branching strategy that emphasizes feature branches and uses tools or scripts to automate the process of merging changes into the master branch while minimizing unnecessary history.