
Protected Branches Improvements - WillAbides
https://github.com/blog/2137-protected-branches-improvements
======
venantius
This is huge. We've wanted to use protected branches ever since they were
announced but haven't been able to because we have hundreds of contributors
merging to our primary branch every day.

------
TomBombadildoze
AAAARRRHGGHGRHRRRHGHGH FINALLY

I was _crushed_ when they added support for protected branches but didn't
include per-user permissions.

------
ctruzzi
This is great! We've been using protected branches with 100+ developers
contributing and often face the out of date branch issue as our GIT
implementors didn't realize this would be an issue until it was too late.

------
pcl
I can't wait for this to land in the enterprise edition. We go through some
pretty convoluted steps to maintain branch protection while still allowing
issues to be edited.

~~~
snambi
Any idea when this will be available in the enterprise edition?

------
wilg
Strange you can't disallow pushing directly to master still.

~~~
danielsju6
You can protect master; it disallows pushes.

~~~
shizcakes
I want people to be able to merge via the Github PR flow, just not push
directly without going through a PR. That doesn't seem possible from the blog
post?

~~~
web007
I want this too. It's possible to make it happen, but it's not easy like basic
protection.

The protected branch behavior has two components to it. The primary protection
is to prevent force-push to a branch, usually master. That one is a no-
brainer.

The secondary behavior (AFAIK) is to enforce exactly what you are looking for,
where you have to push to a branch before merging to master. The only way to
make that happen is to integrate tests - if your branch passes tests, it can
be merged. In my "copious free time" I plan to build a test hook that always
reports "OK" so that I can enable that behavior on all of my repos, and it
should end up as two or three clicks to set it up.

