Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Interestingly enough, most folks working on GitHub.com don't use this model. We actually use a simpler model, and usually merge to our feature branches rather than rebase. I'm not sure if Zach's latest talk(s) goes into this level of detail.

I think a big part of the reasoning is because we tend to push up branches really early to open PR's and get discussion going. And of course rebasing public branches generally leads to hell.

I know some other .com devs will rebase privately before pushing a large branch, but I would say 80% of work is just done with merging.

I think it depends on how public and how many contributors you have to a feature branch. I think author has the assumption that there is typically one dev per feature branch.

Once a feature branch is being worked on by multiple devs (and hence multiple feature branches forked off), it is a public branch and should use a merge based workflow.[0]

I personally use a rebase workflow on private branches before merging since it makes for a cleaner history. I've seen devs merge a branch with 100+ merge commits and it absolutely destroys git history.

[0]: http://lwn.net/Articles/328438/

This is exact same workflow I use. If it's a feature branch that I'm working on locally, then rebase -i is my friend as I can squash commits. But, I rarely stay in a local branch for longer than a day or two for fear of losing work and no developer is an island. The second it is shared, it's merge only.

Rebase conflicts always cause more grief than it's worth.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact