Hacker News Reader

I find it interesting that they commit directly to master. I didn't see any branch merges at all. What is their workflow if they don't use branches? Do developers work offline on a fix then squash all their changes into a single commit and push it to master?

Generally having so many devs working off the same branch at the same time can be a bit problematic. My philosophy is that master should be for branch merges only.

View on HN

Just do fast-forward merges. This means before pushing into the central repo, you rebase your feature branch onto origin/master. Cleaner history and easier to bisect.

However, I prefer non-fast-forward merges for features branches which break in between. Although rebase on origin/master is still good, because you find merge-bugs locally.

You never know with git. Which is one of my big problems with it. The picture on master doesn't necessarily represent what happens on other repos across your organisation.

I don't understand the problem. Which VCS does tell you what your developers are doing on their machines before they commit to your main repository?

None. However svn prevents them doing anything major unless they tell someone.

You mean like Gerrit? Or do you mean something else?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com