5 ms·

> You're under a deadline and your next highest priority task is to add reactions to those comments. What's a 'reaction'? > Why can’t you write the reactions

> You're under a deadline and your next highest priority task is to add reactions to those comments. What's a 'reaction'? > Why can’t you write the reactions branch on top of the comments branch What? Why would I have a 'comments branch'? Having never worked at FAAANG, I've no idea what this marketing material is about, or why I'd need it.

joshuamorton 5y ago
Feature branching is a fairly common practice. "Reactions" are emoji that you can use to respond to a post or comment, like Facebook's like/love/laugh/cry/angry, or slack/discord/messenger/chat/whatever's various ways to emoji-reply to messages. You would have a comments branch if you were adding a feature called "comments", I guess.
- secondcoming 5y ago
  I understand what a feature branch is. I don't understand why I'd need a branch to add an emoji. I assumed that a 'reactions' branch might be a branch that addresses issues in the original PR, but even if it was, why would I need a new branch for that?
  - tomasreimers 5y ago
    Probably because you're trying to break up your changes. Two good blog posts that talk about this workflow are: https://jg.gg/2018/09/29/stacked-diffs-versus-pull-requests/ https://jg.gg/2018/09/29/stacked-diffs-versus-pull-requests/ and https://kurtisnusbaum.medium.com/stacked-diffs-keeping-phabricator-diffs-small-d9964f4dcfa6 https://kurtisnusbaum.medium.com/stacked-diffs-keeping-phabr...
    - secondcoming 5y ago
      Those were useful, thanks!
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    Since I don't use git much these days, I'm going to speak in generalities. I would guess the assumption is that you can't have reactions without comments. So comments v1 is "comments" and v2 is "reactions". They need to be different PRs, so I guess that's what leads to different branches. But they can be reviewed independently, you just have to merge one before the other.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    There are two features you want to add, called "comments" and "reactions". Those aren't PR lingo, they could be named "Feature X" and "Feature Y".

joshuamorton 5y ago

Feature branching is a fairly common practice. "Reactions" are emoji that you can use to respond to a post or comment, like Facebook's like/love/laugh/cry/angry, or slack/discord/messenger/chat/whatever's various ways to emoji-reply to messages. You would have a comments branch if you were adding a feature called "comments", I guess.

secondcoming 5y ago
I understand what a feature branch is. I don't understand why I'd need a branch to add an emoji. I assumed that a 'reactions' branch might be a branch that addresses issues in the original PR, but even if it was, why would I need a new branch for that?
- tomasreimers 5y ago
  Probably because you're trying to break up your changes. Two good blog posts that talk about this workflow are: https://jg.gg/2018/09/29/stacked-diffs-versus-pull-requests/ https://jg.gg/2018/09/29/stacked-diffs-versus-pull-requests/ and https://kurtisnusbaum.medium.com/stacked-diffs-keeping-phabricator-diffs-small-d9964f4dcfa6 https://kurtisnusbaum.medium.com/stacked-diffs-keeping-phabr...
  - secondcoming 5y ago
    Those were useful, thanks!
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Since I don't use git much these days, I'm going to speak in generalities. I would guess the assumption is that you can't have reactions without comments. So comments v1 is "comments" and v2 is "reactions". They need to be different PRs, so I guess that's what leads to different branches. But they can be reviewed independently, you just have to merge one before the other.
- Jensson 5y ago
  There are two features you want to add, called "comments" and "reactions". Those aren't PR lingo, they could be named "Feature X" and "Feature Y".