> Trunk-based development encourages frequent commits, which leads to smaller and more manageable changes. I strongly disagree with this assertion. In my years

> Trunk-based development encourages frequent commits, which leads to smaller and more manageable changes. I strongly disagree with this assertion. In my years of doing development with SVN/CVS the consistent pattern I would see is that developers didn't want to publish their work to trunk until they were certain it was good, and since with SVN you can't make local commits without publishing to trunk people delayed making commits until a feature was complete. In other words, all the work that would be done on a branch with git was instead done on the developer's local machine without any revision control (and often without backups). Good developers would frequently `svn update` as they worked to get smaller conflicts, but code was merged to trunk at the same frequency as it is today with git[1]. In git, the equivalent would be make a branch, then commit --amend each change, fetch and rebase frequently, and then merge the single "squashed" commit. [1] If anything code was merged less frequently because agile encourages smaller stories today but that is completely orthogonal to trunk vs branch based development.