Git release history tracking is difficult and multi-repo version management is chaotic
Problem
Git repositories lack an intuitive standard for tracking release history, making version management complex and prone to source code pollution across multiple projects. Teams often create additional manifest repositories or manually merge release branches to compensate, increasing operational overhead.
Pain points
- Lack of intuitive standard for tracking release history across multiple Git repositories leads to cumbersome operations
- Source repositories risk pollution from version/manifest data, requiring separate storage management
- Accumulation of old Git refs necessitates manual cleanup, adding operational overhead
Questions to verify
- How do you currently coordinate release versions across multiple Git repositories?
- Would you be willing to try a new release history tracking solution to replace your current cumbersome workflow?
- When managing old Git refs, how do you typically decide whether to keep or delete them?
Evidence
quote · @匿名
You can kind of arrive at the same solution, without actually thinking about all this, by just merging into a release branch when making a release.
quote · @匿名
Complicated and unintuitive. Our company has a few dozens of different project repos. I just created a repo for storing deploy manifests (versions, etc. for every repos of a product), and then let our automation pipeline commit the manifest. Simple to follow and no source-unrelated crap in source repos.
quote · @匿名
Or commit a file to main that represents a release and build your automations off that
quote · @匿名
Cool and clever. One question: what do you use your old refs for? We just delete them when we get too many.
Disclaimer: this card is distilled by AI from community discussions as “pain point evidence”. It is a starting point for need analysis and validation, not a “validated market need”. AI has analytical limits; please open the original discussion above to manually verify before key decisions.