3 ms·
I use branches and PRs when developing solo, nevermind developing on a team. It's incredibly freeing to be able to say "This branch is treated as a sandbox. Th
by Yen 8y ago
I use branches and PRs when developing solo, nevermind developing on a team.
It's incredibly freeing to be able to say "This branch is treated as a sandbox. The code is in flux, history is mutable." and "This (master) branch is stable. Every single commit in it is good, passes all known tests and linting, should be safe to rollback to, should be amenable to `git bisect`".
When developing on a team, even if I can push directly to master, I usually shouldn't and won't. I want a second pair of eyes on that code.
Does this "process-heavy" workflow mean I distrust myself? Sure. I expect that I am human, make mistakes and oversights. I also expect that my coworkers are human, and I'm not going to trust their solo efforts any more than my own.
If branches and PRs are institutionalized distrust, well, remember that a healthy amount of distrust is good for you.
- aequitas 8y agoI can only agree to this. Personally I have stopped seeing branches as part of a distrust system and PR's being some sort of gate-keeping/control mechanism. And more and more see them as a healthy self caution. I no longer see making a PR as something for others to judge my work and disapprove of it, but more as an opening for collaboration and discussion. More of a friendly "can we look at this together so we can make it even better", as opposed to an authoritarian "I've done the best I can, I hope it meets all requirements and I don't get complaints". Of course this depends on how people view it at the other end of the line as well, and some people never change. But overall having this look at things made my life as a (open source) developer a lot less stressful.