This article fails for me because it doesn’t clearly define the two sides: what constitutes “trunk” vs “branch”? The two sides in this argument are always fight

This article fails for me because it doesn’t clearly define the two sides: what constitutes “trunk” vs “branch”? The two sides in this argument are always fighting their own straw man of the other side. I’ve heard teams using Phabricator for “trunk based development” say they are reviewing commits not branches. If you’re doing any code review or CI before code lands on trunk, I’ve got a hard time seeing the difference between that and a “branch”. Even in a CVS like SVN, your local code changes are still a “branch” that diverged from trunk until you commit it up to the server. And if you go 1-2 weeks without committing to trunk that’s just the same to others as going 1-2 weeks making hourly local git commits to a local branch… And if I make a local git branch, commit 100 times to it over 6 hours, and then squash those local commits and push a single change to trunk, is that any different from trunk development? At $JOB we use GitHub, try to make small Pull Requests that are usually merged within 24 hours of PR open, and those PRs tend to receive commits for between 6 hours and 4 days before we try to merge them into `main`. But you’re free to make as many commits as you want to your branch. We squash it down to a single commit rebased on main. Main is the only branch that lives indefinitely. Is that “branch” or “trunk” development? I think it’s “trunk” but maybe the author would differ.