3 ms·

Seems like all the time you'd ostensibly save on not branching you instead spend doing very careful munging later and crafting very careful commits with git add

• monkpit 7y ago
  And (if I understand the workflow correctly) you wouldn’t be able to test on your local at all... cross your fingers that your patch doesn’t break something!
• derefr 7y ago
  > you instead spend doing very careful munging later and crafting very careful commits with git add -p and rebase I mean, I already do this, because I like to be able to understand my commits as standalone historical artifacts. IMHO commits exist to be read (by your future self trying to figure out WTF you were on about most of all!) as much as they exist to change the state of the codebase. Given that I'm already doing this, it wouldn't be any more work to use a workflow like this, I guess? (I still use branches. And have multiple git worktrees checked out at once from the same repo.)