Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Microsoft Exam AZ-400 Topic 5 Question 93 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's AZ-400 exam
Question #: 93
Topic #: 5
[All AZ-400 Questions]

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?

Show Suggested Answer Hide 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
Alfreda
22 days 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
23 days 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
Laticia
3 days ago
User 1: A) Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Sueann
1 months 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
Glen
14 days ago
User 2: Maybe we should consider a different pull request strategy to achieve our goal.
upvoted 0 times
...
Weldon
22 days ago
User 1: I agree, an explicit merge might not be the best way to reduce history volume.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lawrence
2 months 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
24 days ago
User 2: I agree, we should explore other options to reduce the history volume.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amie
27 days ago
User 1: I think an explicit merge might make the commit history more cluttered.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lynelle
2 months ago
I'm not sure, but I think the answer is A) Yes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Solange
2 months 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
Annmarie
25 days ago
User 3: A) Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
Teri
28 days ago
User 2: B) No
upvoted 0 times
...
Alpha
1 months ago
User 1: A) Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Marylin
2 months ago
I agree with Hector, explicit merge can help reduce history volume in the master branch.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hector
2 months ago
I think the solution using an explicit merge will meet the goal.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel