Default merge policies per repo (better ui? better docs?)
Some groups have specific policies that always require squash merges. This is always a contentious issue because there are different opinions about what this really means to project histories.
Github for a long time allowed the ability to set a squash merge as the default merge policy for a repo. For multiple years this was the #1 feature request on gitlab, and some refused to use gitlab, or even abandoned using gitlab, because of this, until finally ?last year? when they also made the ability to define merge policy defaults on a per-repo basis.
In the case of gitea this normally may play out differently. Because it is simple to build, I imagine those who really require and mandate squash merges probably would just maintain a patch to make that the default behavior globally for their own build, or submit it as a global option patch. However, in the case of something like codeberg, where different developer communities co-mingle, having a single global policy that will make everyone happy seems rather unlikely. So I am suggesting that for sites like codeberg, gitea also adopt the ability to have some kind of per repo default merge policy setting, too.
In the settings, you can enable and disable all kind of options for Merges that should be available, although a default cannot be set. Is this enough?
If for example you want to squash pulls, just disable everything but this option, and the green button will always squash. Settings look like this:
If this isn't enough for this use case yet and you have a GitHub account, please check for this issue upstream and report there. It's always good if someone who checks this in is available to respond to requests and / or comment on the design. Otherwise, just tell us and we'll eventually open the request. I think having a default selection for a repo sounds like a good idea.
Well, every behaviour that is not really obvious should either be documented or improved to make the UI more intuitive IMHO.
I had to play with this as well, and it was probably more of luck that it worked out this way.
A feature request might still make sense.
Then let's leave it open, at least for other feedback. Naybe it could simply be documented somewhere on the site, or maybe the ui should be improved to be more obvious...
Deleting a branch is permanent. It CANNOT be undone. Continue?