3 ms·
I don't see how you're avoiding development branches. Surely while a change is in development the author doesn't simply push to main. Otherwise concurrent devel
by imiric 10mo ago
I don't see how you're avoiding development branches. Surely while a change is in development the author doesn't simply push to main. Otherwise concurrent development, and any code review process—assuming you have one—would be too impractical.
So you can say that you have short-lived development branches that are always rebased on main. Along with the release branch and cherry-pick process, the workflow you describe is quite common.
- ozozozd 10mo agoTheir dev branch is _the_ development branch. They don’t do code reviews or any sort of parallel development. They’re under the impression that “releases are complex and this is how they avoid it” but they just moved the complexity and sacrificed things like parallel work, code reviews, reverts of whole features.
- eddd-ddde 10mo agoI'm not sure where you got that from. There is a single branch, which obviously has code review, and reverts work just the same way. What there isn't, is long lived feature branches with non-integrated changes.