Microsoft AZ-400 Exam - Topic 5 Question 93 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's AZ-400 exam

Question #: 93
Topic #: 5

Note: This question is part of a series of questions that present the same scenario. Each question in the series contains a unique solution thatmight 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 willnot appear in the review screen.

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

You use a Git repository for applications source control.

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

Solution: You implement a pull request strategy that uses an explicit merge.

Does this meet the goal?

AYes

BNo

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

by Roslyn at Apr 08, 2024, 01:16 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Kerry

10 months ago

I thought squash merges were better for history management?

upvoted 0 times

...

Gracia

10 months ago

Sounds good to me, less clutter in the master branch!

upvoted 0 times

...

Adolph

10 months ago

Wait, does that really reduce history volume?

upvoted 0 times

...

Dorothy

10 months ago

I disagree, it might complicate things.

upvoted 0 times

...

Luis

11 months ago

Yes, explicit merges keep the history cleaner!

upvoted 0 times

...

Larae

11 months ago

I’m leaning towards "No" because I recall that explicit merges can create a lot of noise in the commit history.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mila

11 months ago

I feel like explicit merges keep all the commit history intact, which might not help with reducing volume in the master branch.

upvoted 0 times

...

Enola

11 months ago

I think we practiced a similar question where a squash merge was suggested to clean up history. Maybe that’s what we need here?

upvoted 0 times

...

Graciela

11 months ago

I remember studying about merge strategies, but I'm not sure if an explicit merge actually reduces history volume.

upvoted 0 times

...

Wai

11 months ago

Reducing the history volume is a smart idea, and the explicit merge approach seems like it could do the trick. I'll walk through the scenario step-by-step to confirm this is the right solution.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kenda

11 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. Reducing the history volume sounds like a good goal, but I'm not familiar with the specifics of the pull request strategy. I'll need to review the instructions carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Gerald

11 months ago

I think the explicit merge strategy could work to reduce the history volume in the master branch, but I'll need to double-check the details to be sure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alexis

11 months ago

Okay, an explicit merge pull request strategy - that makes sense as a way to consolidate the commit history. I'll make sure to understand how that works before answering.

upvoted 0 times

...

Timothy

12 months ago

I'm confident that Option C is the way to go here. The code snippet looks like it follows the SFRA best practices for caching.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ashley

12 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question mentions using different networks for the two tenants, so I'm not sure if the shared network infrastructure option is correct.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mila

12 months ago

I'm pretty sure developing a new proprietary module leans more towards customization, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Alfreda

1 year ago

I bet the person who came up with this solution has never had to deal with a tangled commit history. It's like trying to untangle a plate of spaghetti by adding more spaghetti!

upvoted 0 times

...

Hana

1 year ago

This is like trying to clean up your room by shoving everything in the closet. Sure, the master branch might look tidier, but the real mess is just hidden away. I think we need a more elegant solution here.

upvoted 0 times

Salena

1 year ago

User 3: I agree with Salena, we need a better solution

upvoted 0 times

...

Catarina

1 year ago

User 2: B) No

upvoted 0 times

...

Laticia

1 year ago

User 1: A) Yes

upvoted 0 times

...

Sueann

1 year ago

Wait, so we're trying to reduce the history volume, but this solution involves an explicit merge? Isn't that just going to make the history even more convoluted? I'm not convinced this is the right approach.

upvoted 0 times

Mireya

1 year ago

User 4: Let's discuss some alternative strategies to see what might work better.

upvoted 0 times

...

Verlene

1 year ago

User 3: I think we should explore other options before implementing this solution.

upvoted 0 times

...

Glen

1 year ago

User 2: Maybe we should consider a different pull request strategy to achieve our goal.

upvoted 0 times

...

Weldon

1 year ago

User 1: I agree, an explicit merge might not be the best way to reduce history volume.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lawrence

1 year ago

Hmm, I'm not so sure about this. Wouldn't an explicit merge lead to a more complex and cluttered commit history? I'd want to explore other options that might be more effective at reducing the history volume.

upvoted 0 times

Desire

1 year ago

User 2: I agree, we should explore other options to reduce the history volume.

upvoted 0 times

...

Amie

1 year ago

User 1: I think an explicit merge might make the commit history more cluttered.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lynelle

1 year ago

I'm not sure, but I think the answer is A) Yes.

upvoted 0 times

...

Solange

1 year ago

Implementing an explicit merge for the pull request strategy seems like a good way to reduce the history volume in the master branch. I think this solution would meet the goal.

upvoted 0 times