►
From YouTube: Sync on Allow Deploy keys to push to protected branches
A
A
Like
a
quick
comment
throughout
the
discussion
inside
of
the
issue,
I've
repeatedly
asked
like
hey
this:
how
I
see
we
solve
this?
This
does
require
front
end.
Are
we
going
to
be
able
to
do
this
or
or
not,
and
at
some
point,
I
think
other
issues
do
priority
for
all
of
us,
which
kind
of
left
this
one
on
its
on
its
own
for
a
little
bit,
and
that's
why
we're
so,
let's
see
if
I
can
resolve
that
anybody
else
have
any
thoughts.
A
B
A
C
D
C
E
A
C
I
I
think
protocol
I
think
it
has
a
good
point.
A
protected
environment
was
as
far
as
I
remember
mentioned
at
some
point
during
that,
like
in
that
issue
thread,
but
yes,
I,
think
and
just
like
to
to
be
in
line
with
the
you
know,
the
just
the
smallest
interaction
possible
I
think
we
just
you
should
just
think
with
protecting
branches
only
at
first
and
then
and
then
that's
what
this
issue
is
about.
C
It's
just
about
protected
branches
initially,
so,
even
though
protected
environment
may
have
been
I
mentioned
at
some
point
during
the
issue
on
the
issue,
threats
I
think
we
should
just
stick
on
the
protected
branches
right
and
just
direct
on
that
for
protected
environment
later
on.
If
there
isn't
it
so.
A
C
C
Like
you
see
what
I
mean,
there
is
maybe
a
relationship
between,
so
there
is
a
relationship
between
the
deployed
key
and
its
owner,
obviously,
but
using
a
deployed
key
to
push
to
push
onto
a
protective
tected
branch
that
is
going
to
trigger,
maybe
yeah,
it's
nice
going
to
trigger
a
pipeline
onto
a
protective
MBR
mines
right.
Maybe
that
should
be
made
you
know
available
and
that
prep
pipeline
trigger
should
be
the
deploy
key
owner.
C
So
I
agree
that
you
know
it's
a
you
know
we
cannot
do
one
without
the
other
for
sure
right,
but
still
in
terms
of
mr,
I
think
we
should
just
like
focus
on
the
protecting
branch,
and
then
there
should
be
another,
mr
in
terms
of
like
creating
that,
I'm
not
quite
sure
where
the
line
is
between
to
mrs.
There
is
definitely
relationship
between
protected
brush
and
political
young
man's,
but
if
we
are
setting
up
the
rules
about
what
who
triggers
the
pipeline
and
on
the
protecting
on
the
element,
then
I
think
we
should
be
a.
A
C
A
That
sounds
good.
So,
to
validate
my
questions
like
say,
we
have
something
set
up
that
a
deployed
he
pushes
to
protect
a
branch.
Then
it
depends
on
the
configuration
of
deploying
towards
the
protected
environment.
If
that
is
possible,
yes
or
no
like
it
doesn't
need
to
depend
on
the
deploy
key
in
order
to
push
towards
to
protect
to
the
environment.
Is
that
correct?
Okay,
because
if.
C
A
Like
that,
would
that
was
a
little
bit
where
I'm,
where
I
would
stuck
as
well
like
hey
if
we're
gonna
push
like
this
feature,
but
it
does
not
generate
user
value.
I
mean
it
is
a
little
bit
dependable
right,
like
a
it's
very
use
case,
for
only
pushing
to
protect
the
branches,
even
though
it
you
know
like
that,
does
nothing
there's
no
deploys
whatever.
Then
we
already
couldn't
even
use
values,
but
if
that
is
not
the
case
and
needing
to
protect,
you
need
to
use
a
deploy.
A
A
C
E
A
E
A
Yeah
but
you're
like
you're,
using
the
deploy
key
right,
so
it
depends
on
like
hey.
Does
the
deploy
key
have
enough
permissions
because
that's
where
we're
at
or
this,
where
we're
giving?
Are
we
giving
the
deploy
key
permission
or
not
towards
this
protected
branch
and
or
to
this
protected
environment?
And
we
have
arm
or
certainly
scoping
off
the
first
Midwest?
But
it's
kind
of
like
the
is:
is
that
a
problem?
Yes
or
no
I.
E
B
C
C
A
C
So
yeah,
the
only
thing
that
I
don't
know
is:
is
the
pipeline
failing
silently
or
is
it?
Maybe
it's
not
starting
at
all?
I
actually,
don't
know
the
flow
when
we
have
like
a
protective
branch
and
we
associated
to
break
into
it
and
then
deploy
protected
moments,
and
we
don't
do
anything
about
that
in.
C
B
A
B
C
B
C
C
B
B
C
C
C
B
A
That
makes
sense
all
right
that
is,
there's
done
so
wolf
will
get
that
posted
to
the
issue
as
a
video
and
then
for
this
merge
request.
Let's
get
back
to
your
point,
which
was
you
know?
What
action
are
we
taking
in
terms
of
who
acts
the
link
he
posted
earlier,
which
links
to
the
mock-up
I
created
for
the
protected
branches
you
I
like.
Let
me
see,
I,
have
suggestion
tow
for
clarity,
because
this
you
say,
keep
the
poisk.
A
You
section
is
more
like:
where
are
we
gonna
put
the
emphasis
in
terms
of
information
hierarchy
on
I
suggest
if
we're
gonna
make
deploy
keys,
that
no
new
entity
in
the
options
for
protected
branches?
Let's
make
the
deploy
key,
the
actual,
like
the
most
like
important
information
that
but
then
I
liked
your
suggestion
of
including
user
who
owns
that
deploy
key
I,
think
that's
very
valuable
information.
So
the
market
kind
of
reflects
that
as
in
how
that
would
be
shown.
Based
on
your
like
it's
an
iteration
upon
your
screenshot
right,
mm-hmm.
C
C
B
C
B
C
C
C
Have
the
rights
to
push
that
to
that
protected
branch,
and
so
by
doing
so,
the
Detroit
key
will
be
able
to
push
to
the
protected
branch,
and
should
we
implicit
also
give
the
right
to
the
user
to
push
it
a
protected
branch
I
like
as
they
as
a
you
know.
As
a
consequence,
there's,
like
you
know,
you
know
as
a
call
back
right
you.
We
also
grant
access
to
I
I.
A
C
That's
correct
and
also
that
I
would
say:
I
would
say
no
and
that
ties
back
to
a
conversation.
We
had
a
while
back
about
the
fact
that,
when
we
are
getting
with
not
getting
rid
of
a
user
per
night,
either
deleting
a
user
or
like
and
assigning
a
user
from
a
project,
their
deployed
case
is
becoming
unavailable.
Also
we're
not
getting.
We
are
getting
rid
of
the
deployed
keys
or
we
are
getting.
C
A
E
Solution
that
give
a
suggest
is
creating.
You
know
about,
like
these
service
accounts
and
tying
them
to
specific
users,
but
users
that
want
to
save
on
seats.
Don't
want
to
do
that,
but
that's
still
the
suggestion
from
given
new
service
accounts.
If
you
want
to
have
the
point
keys,
not
related
to
specific
users.
A
Exit
takes
up
a
seat,
count
better
I
would
say
that's
like
gesture
only
like,
even
though
you
know
we
know,
like
you
know,
on
on
a
business
scale
of
finance.
That
is
a
small
amount
of
money,
but
from
an
emotional
perspective,
I
do
not
agree
with
that.
Like
I,
as
a
user
of
like
a
business
owner
on
an
emotional
level,
do
not
agree
with
that.
Workaround
at
all.
D
Really
quickly,
I
don't
want
to
interrupt
this
conversation
because
I
know
it's
really
important,
but
the
friend
issue
is
open
and
then
reassigned
to
the
create
stage,
and
if
you
kind
of
go
back
in
the
history
of
this
issue,
it
started
and
creates
then
hopped
over
the
fence
to
progressive
delivery.
Darby
took
it
on
in
this
schedule,
did
so
I'm
a
little
hesitant
to
throw
it
back
over
the
fence
to
the
create
team.
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
original.
D
A
A
D
D
C
C
I
would
be
comfortable
doing
a
bit
of
a
bit
of
backing
work
before
involving
a
involving
front
end,
so
that
I
can
you
know,
serve
the
data
at
front
M
needs,
but
I
don't
think
there
is
a
lot
of
front-end
work.
That
needs
to
be
done
here.
What
mr,
in
terms
of
issue
weight
should
be.
There
should
be
enough
that.
B
C
E
A
C
A
A
A
C
C
A
Sounds
totally
good
to
me.
Thank
you
so
much,
it's
always
helpful
to
see
that
clarified.
Yeah
then
I'm
sooo,
pretty
clear,
I'll,
give
an
update
on
the
issue
and
update
description,
and
then
we
should
be
able
to
move
forward
with
this,
and,
let
me
see,
are
we
clear
on
when
this
will
be
done
like
this
is
currently
scheduled
for
1301?