On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 09:54:29PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > >>>Yes, that's where we disagree. I don't see these additional commits as > >>>good enough reason to drown people in branching mania. Unless someone > >>>develops new nifty feature or particularly tough bug, he shouldn't > >>>recognize there is some difference between svn and git. > >>You seem to have an aversion to branches, while I can't work without > >>them anymore. > >There is a difference between (a) using branches for work (implementing > >stuff, checking out other people's work etc) and (b) having branches in > >the main repo. (a) does not imply (b). > > (a) does not imply (b), but both (a) and (b) imply "branching > mania". So, given (a), "branching mania" can't be a reason to refuse > (b).
(a) is everybody own's business. Nobody will ever know how many local branches you have used to end up with that single patch or two that finally go to the main repo. Same for branches in any private repos you might have used to share previews of your work. As long as it's not in the main repo, nobody should really care, and you can use whatever make you feel happy. "Branching mania" is only a problem when this kind of structure gets set in stone in the main repo by merging, instead of, say, squashing stuff to palatable chunks and cherry-picking the result to a mostly linear main repo. Andre'
