4 ms·

Feature branches are almost the opposite of continuous integration. If you're committing to a branch then by definition you're not integrating your changes with

• philwelch 14y ago
  OK, let me throw this out there: what if you're developing a feature that takes longer than a fraction of a day to write, and you want that feature to be developed independently of any other half-baked features that are out there? Or developing more than one feature at a time? Or you are halfway through developing a major feature when you suddenly realize there's a high-priority bug that has to be fixed first? Or you decide halfway through developing a major feature that you went about it all wrong and made a hash of everything and want to start from scratch? > If you're committing to a branch then by definition you're not integrating your changes with people working on other branches. When other people's changes are merged to integration, I'll rebase off of integration and resolve any conflicts then and there. No problem. > Smaller changesets are far easier to merge. ...and since I'm continuously rebasing off of the integration branch, all my merges are fastforward, which is even easier. The criticism against feature branches makes sense if it's coming from people who don't use Git fluently. Otherwise it's absolute nonsense.