Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 2
    The alternate solution is to create a release branch for testing, then tag the release branch when going to production. The release branch is shortly-used (but kept around) though, and only used until it is deployed. It would stick around for eternity as a record of what was / is deployed. Commented Nov 22, 2019 at 16:52
  • 1
    Well, that could be a relevant question detail Commented Nov 22, 2019 at 16:59
  • 1
    @RobertK I think you should edit the info on the alternate solution into your question. The difference that I can see is if you need to support multiple releases at the same time (e.g you have customers on v3 and v4) then having a release branch is necessary, as you will provide fixes for v3 on the v3 release branch, and fixes for v4 on the v4 release branch. Company I worked at had about 3 or 4 active releases at time and used that structure. Commented Nov 22, 2019 at 19:54
  • > know what’s in prod? You look at the record made when code was deployed to prod. Hopefully your deployments are automated, so each deployment should be recorded somewhere. Commented Mar 10, 2023 at 14:17