Microsoft AZ-400 Exam - Topic 1 Question 124 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's AZ-400 exam

Question #: 124
Topic #: 1

Note: This question is part of a series of questions that present the same scenario. Each question in the series contains a unique solution that might meet the stated goals. Some question sets might have more than one correct solution, while others might not have a correct solution.

After you answer a question in this section, you will NOT be able to return to it. As a result, these questions will not appear in the review screen.

Your company uses Azure DevOps to manage the build and release processes for applications.

You usea Git repository for applications source control.

You need to implement a pull request strategy that reduces the history volume in the master branch.

Solution: You implement a pull request strategy that uses a three-way merge.

Does this meet the goal?

AYes

BNo

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

Instead use fast-forward merge.

Note:

No fast-forward merge - This option merges the commit history of the source branch when the pull request closes and creates a merge commit in the target branch.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/repos/git/branch-policies

by Ressie at Jul 29, 2025, 07:48 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium AZ-400 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Brandon

2 months ago

Yes, it definitely meets the goal!

upvoted 0 times

...

Justine

2 months ago

I disagree, it can still lead to a cluttered history.

upvoted 0 times

...

Graham

3 months ago

A three-way merge helps keep the history cleaner.

upvoted 0 times

...

Gaynell

3 months ago

Not sure if that's the best approach for all scenarios.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tamie

3 months ago

Wait, does that really reduce history volume?

upvoted 0 times

...

Aleisha

3 months ago

I believe a three-way merge is standard, but I can't recall if it actually helps with the history volume issue.

upvoted 0 times

...

Fidelia

3 months ago

I feel like using a squash merge could be more effective for keeping the master branch clean, but I'm not entirely confident.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tawanna

4 months ago

I think we discussed similar questions in practice, and I recall that a three-way merge might not be the best option for reducing history.

upvoted 0 times

...

Noah

4 months ago

I remember studying about pull request strategies, but I'm not sure if a three-way merge specifically reduces history volume.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ira

4 months ago

This seems straightforward. A three-way merge pull request strategy should help reduce the history volume in the master branch, so I'll select that option.

upvoted 0 times

...

Derick

4 months ago

I'm a bit confused on this one. The question mentions a unique solution, but I'm not sure if the three-way merge is the right approach. I'll need to double-check the details and make sure I understand the requirements fully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Andra

4 months ago

I think I've got this one. Implementing a pull request strategy that uses a three-way merge should meet the goal of reducing the history volume in the master branch. I'll go with that.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cary

5 months ago

Okay, let's see. A three-way merge could help reduce the history volume, but I'm not sure if that's the right approach here. I'll need to review the details more closely.

upvoted 0 times

...

Pearlie

5 months ago

Hmm, this one seems tricky. I'll need to think carefully about the pull request strategy and how it impacts the history volume in the master branch.

upvoted 0 times

...