Azure DevOps not deleting the secondary branch merged into master/Main

You have to set it for each pull request individually

A small additional point, but in git, branches are practically free - they’re “just” a pointer, so they take almost no disk space, don’t cause overhead, etc. If you have previously used TFVC, this may be an alien idea, but it’s true!

It’s absolutely good practice to tidy up/delete branches as you go, but if you forget to do so, there’s no real penalty (save possibly some messy UIs). AzDo encourages you to use branch names with implicit folders (e.g. rf/remove-commented-code), so get in that habit if you have any sort of repo with multiple regular committers.

Thank you, . I’ve taken 3 excellent Git courses on LinkedIn. But as you say, a lot of this is foreign to me. And even though I’ve taken the courses, it takes time using Git and Azure DevOps (or GitHub) to really get good at it. Where I work we use TFVC and an older version of TFS. In fact, I happen to be the TFS Administrator (I was the guy “standing nearest the server” when the former TFS admin left), so I spend a large part of my day working with TFS/TFVC. There are many things about Git which I LOVE compared to TFVC. I’m trying to get my colleagues to adopt it, but this really is an up hill battle. They’ve been using TFVC since before I joined them 6 years ago. I believe Git and with it really good software development practices, such as PRs, branch policies, etc. would vastly improve our software development. But I confess that I lose heart, because of the hundreds of developers who don’t want to budge off of TFVC.

Sounds like a battle, wow. Hundreds of developers who don’t want to leave TFVC? The general sentiment in the world in which I work (UK/Eastern Europe/South Africa, .NET and nodejs) is absolutely the opposite. Of those who have even heard of TFVC, they would actively choose to avoid it.

I hear you on “standing close to the server”, and even if/when you migrate everything to AzDo, you’ll still be that guy :slightly_smiling_face:

If leadership is behind the move, it would sound like a scheduled roll-out and the teams simply need to accept the fate of modern industry tooling over collective personal preferences. Good luck with that!