You're saying this as if it's a feature. In projects I work on, they could be released/deployed almost at any time (at a minimum they are deployable to a testing/demo server), and if the tip of the branch happens to not be, we can easily deploy/release a version from a few commits earlier. Tag it and call it a day. I don't get that "merge dev to master" process.
Are you really saying your dev branch can at times be in a state where you'd say about it: "oh yes, this is currently entirely broken, but don't worry, we'll fix it in time for the scheduled release"?
Dev is not totally unstable! It's yet not ready for production. All internal phases (dev, test, regression) will be carried out here and finally will be merged into stable branch (name as per your preference)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Ongoing development features branches will be merged to dev regularly and dev will be merged to main when dev becomes stable and mergable.
That doesn't explain (and even less so justify) why you do it.
Also, does that mean that dev is not always in a releasable state?
Yes, dev is unstable !
You're saying this as if it's a feature. In projects I work on, they could be released/deployed almost at any time (at a minimum they are deployable to a testing/demo server), and if the tip of the branch happens to not be, we can easily deploy/release a version from a few commits earlier. Tag it and call it a day. I don't get that "merge dev to master" process.
Are you really saying your dev branch can at times be in a state where you'd say about it: "oh yes, this is currently entirely broken, but don't worry, we'll fix it in time for the scheduled release"?
Dev is not totally unstable! It's yet not ready for production. All internal phases (dev, test, regression) will be carried out here and finally will be merged into stable branch (name as per your preference)