3 ms·

> I do commercial closed-source development; there is no public branch to the whole world. OTOH, all feature branches are public to the team If you don't work

> I do commercial closed-source development; there is no public branch to the whole world. OTOH, all feature branches are public to the team If you don't work with private branches, it's not surprising that you don't see any value in rebasing which is mostly useful for private branches. In fact, if you don't have private vs. public scenarios, it's not really clear whether you need a distributed version control system. But that makes sense, DCVS were developed for OSS after all.

nawitus 12y ago
What does "private branch" mean? All branches are "private" until I publish them. If I create a branch which tracks a remote branch and make a commit to it, my local branch is "private" and the commit is "private. However, I can push that "private branch" to other developers, and then it becomes public.
- guipsp 12y ago
  >What does "private branch" mean? All branches are "private" until I publish them. Exactly that. An unpublished branch.
barrkel 12y ago
> it's not really clear whether you need a distributed version control system The benefits of a DVCS are far broader than that. Development on code that is stored on individual developer's machines is fundamentally distributed. Removing the requirement to be connected for any interaction with the system is major. Deferring conflicts until merge time rather than using file locking is major. There are loads of benefits from DVCS that have no requirement for an important distinction between public and private.