4 ms·

When the term 'continuous integration' was originally conceived, the point was to avoid branching altogether. It was not features branches that was the problem

When the term 'continuous integration' was originally conceived, the point was to avoid branching altogether. It was not features branches that was the problem (there was no such thing at the time), the problem was synchronising work between groups that were working on different parts of the same application. So the original CI server concept was that everyone would get a nightly update. Having a branch run for even 2-3 weeks means that you are not practicing continuous integration ... as originally conceived. I'm not convinced that it's a good thing that you and so many others have stopped questioning feature branching.

pards 4y ago
>> Having a branch run for even 2-3 weeks means that you are not practicing continuous integration ... as originally conceived. Unless you're updating the feature branch from the main branch frequently (at least daily), thereby continuously integrating your code from the mainline. Problems arise when everyone's working on their own long-lived feature branch and the mainline doesn't move until they all try to merge their feature at the end of a sprint. Refactoring makes this worse.