> I think the success of such a workflow says a lot of positive things both about drewdevault and git. There's a massive flaw in this approach if the repo is

> I think the success of such a workflow says a lot of positive things both about drewdevault and git. There's a massive flaw in this approach if the repo is not private (collaboration is mentioned in the post in terms of "review some incoming patches") in that you can't push works in progress to the remote as you are doing it all in master. If you did push those then when you tidy it up you will cause problems for other collaborators. If you can't push WIP out then you have the only copy, and you're losing some of the distributed advantages of git: distributed backups of your WIP changes being one of those. > But to be able to successfully rebase and reorder and cherrypick commits says a lot to me about highly disciplined organization. Yeah, rebases and cherry-picks are great features. Just use branches as the starting point.