Branching/merging workflow with a team

jackb

Our team has been using Xano alongside WeWeb, and we're starting to explore the branching experience. I feel like it could be improved.

In WeWeb, if you want to connect your staging environment with a non-live Xano branch, you have to hard code the name of that branch. In our case, we'd like to use 'staging'. Therefore in Xano, we'd have a 'production' branch, 'staging' branch, and specific feature branches that we spin up as we go. For a release, feature branches get merged into 'staging', then tested altogether, then staging gets merged into 'production'. Just like a normal software engineering team workflow.

My feedback for Xano is that, to my knowledge, there is no way to 'archive' branches that have already been merged (ideally this would be a checkbox during the merge flow to archive the source branch). We can ask team members to delete these branches or change their color to red, but this introduces the potential for human error (someone forgets or, god forbid, accidentally deletes a branch before merging it).

Has anyone set up a similar workflow before or perfected the team branching experience? @frederic I saw your previous post about this but that was before 'merging' had been introduced. @Michael Udinski – any thoughts from you?

PS the datetime below a branch should be the last time it was updated as a destination, not the datetime it was created (which is much less relevant).

macaraigjosh

We've just started working with Xano, and I'm looking for best practices for branching. Hope we can find some. 🙂

mike-k

IMO, this is an area that needs lots of improvement to make Xano scalable for teams. Xano team, are there any improvements in the roadmap?

Liz Anaya

Hey @jackb, @macaraigjosh, and @mike-k! 👋

Thanks so much for your feedback! 🙏 I've passed this on to our engineering team. I'll keep you posted on any planned improvements to the branching/merging experience.