4 ms·

Sorry that I didn't explicitly say "local copy of the main branch". I thought that's a given. Not that it's really relevant though... Still the same problem wit

Sorry that I didn't explicitly say "local copy of the main branch". I thought that's a given. Not that it's really relevant though... Still the same problem with feature branches - if you don't integrate often the code will change under your hands and you won't be able to use the code others made until you integrate with them. Please understand that "feature branch" is a technical term describing a very specific branching strategy - and you're not going to find its definition in the Git docs; I think it was originally defined by Atlassian (but not quite sure). A local copy of the main branch with a few additional commits that you're going to push to the origin way before the feature is complete is not a "feature branch" as commonly defined.

JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
You're claiming what your team did wasn't "develop features in a branch", when you did precisely that.
- WHATDOESIT 4y ago
  No, I am claiming "our team didn't develop features in feature branches". Local copy of the main branch is a branch too, I know that very well. But it's definitely not a "feature branch" - it's not named after the issue number, it's merged way before the feature is complete, no PR is created, etc.
  - JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
    An irrelevant claim then, as the comment you originally replied to wasn’t about “feature branches”. You originally replied talking about how hard branches are to merge, but then revealed you also use branches to develop features, thus revealing a fundamental lack of understanding about how git works.
    - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
      Yeah indeed, I was the one to bring feature branches up - my original comment said that learning Git better won't help you with feature branches in case such as ours, and that what's actually needed is a workflow change - as a reply to a comment claiming that any issues could be solved by just learning the tool better, as if there was a magic command argument that'd resolve the merge conflicts resulting from this workflow, or something. In our case we stopped using the `git branch` and `git checkout` commands whereas previously it was an integral part of our workflow, hence "not branching out" - again, sorry for not saying explicitly in that one comment that of course we worked with the local copy of the main branch which is a branch too, since that's how Git works I thought that's a given, this is a professional forum and I didn't think I need to call out everything so explicitly as if I was talking to a junior dev. I never said that branches are hard to use nor that we didn't use them - it's only your strawman where you (since I explained what I meant so many times, it must be) intentionally misinterpret what I said about feature branches. You even sent a link to Git docs when I asked you about workflow strategy and in reply to articles talking about workflow... :-D Feature branches are a very common workflow at many companies big and small, one could reasonably say it's the standard, practically every single team where I worked has done it this way and any change to this workflow was much discussed and temporary - and I've seen that happen only 2 times ever in my 12 years of SWE consulting career. I'm really surprised you are acting as if this was the first time you heard the term. And - we got it already, you're a Git ninja. You can stop trying to show us your superiority now. The discussion would be much more pleasant - and I'm not saying this because you know more about Git than me, I'd be happy to learn. ;-)

JimmieMcnulty 4y ago

You're claiming what your team did wasn't "develop features in a branch", when you did precisely that.

WHATDOESIT 4y ago
No, I am claiming "our team didn't develop features in feature branches". Local copy of the main branch is a branch too, I know that very well. But it's definitely not a "feature branch" - it's not named after the issue number, it's merged way before the feature is complete, no PR is created, etc.
- JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
  An irrelevant claim then, as the comment you originally replied to wasn’t about “feature branches”. You originally replied talking about how hard branches are to merge, but then revealed you also use branches to develop features, thus revealing a fundamental lack of understanding about how git works.
  - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
    Yeah indeed, I was the one to bring feature branches up - my original comment said that learning Git better won't help you with feature branches in case such as ours, and that what's actually needed is a workflow change - as a reply to a comment claiming that any issues could be solved by just learning the tool better, as if there was a magic command argument that'd resolve the merge conflicts resulting from this workflow, or something. In our case we stopped using the `git branch` and `git checkout` commands whereas previously it was an integral part of our workflow, hence "not branching out" - again, sorry for not saying explicitly in that one comment that of course we worked with the local copy of the main branch which is a branch too, since that's how Git works I thought that's a given, this is a professional forum and I didn't think I need to call out everything so explicitly as if I was talking to a junior dev. I never said that branches are hard to use nor that we didn't use them - it's only your strawman where you (since I explained what I meant so many times, it must be) intentionally misinterpret what I said about feature branches. You even sent a link to Git docs when I asked you about workflow strategy and in reply to articles talking about workflow... :-D Feature branches are a very common workflow at many companies big and small, one could reasonably say it's the standard, practically every single team where I worked has done it this way and any change to this workflow was much discussed and temporary - and I've seen that happen only 2 times ever in my 12 years of SWE consulting career. I'm really surprised you are acting as if this was the first time you heard the term. And - we got it already, you're a Git ninja. You can stop trying to show us your superiority now. The discussion would be much more pleasant - and I'm not saying this because you know more about Git than me, I'd be happy to learn. ;-)