I agree,
I have enjoyed and documented it myself.
But:
- If you are an expert, all you need to do is create a new branch, apply the hotfix, merge, delete the branch. The 3 create-merge-delete steps take just a few seconds and make the process safer
- If you a beginner, you need to learn to keep your eyes open and make sure you don’t edit
prod(now calledmaster), which is more difficult compared to the old cleaner behavior, where it was impossible to editprod(earlier calledpublished) - Whether you are a beginner or an expert, working in an environment that exposes an app to direct editing that very likely causes it to break, is just looking for trouble. When the only advantage is avoiding those 3 quick steps
I think the use Anvil makes of git is genius and very powerful.
Unfortunately Anvil wants you to use git the way git is usually used, with the whole workflow turning around a branch called master. But I don’t see any other reason to call that branch master other than that’s what the other guys do outside of Anvil.
We do have years of testing with a read-only branch called published.
I haven’t seen any complains about it.
I have never accidentally modified it and I have never accidentally broken an app. Because it was read-only.
I don’t understand the decision to rename the published branch from a meaningful published to a confusing master.
I don’t understand the decision to make the read-only branch read-and-write.
I consider these two regressions from the old editor.
One week with the published branch read-and-write and I have had 6-7 accidents of broken apps, and we start seeing questions in the forum like this one. If the published branch was read-only this question wouldn’t exist.
I love the complete redesign and the added features, but I don’t see why the two things that were working beautifully have been changed:
- There was a branch linked to the published app called
published - That
publishedbranch was read-only