For long, I was merge-averse on feature branches, and used rebase too. But it gets messy once others start interacting with your branches, since after the rebase you need a forced push. That ruins others' state.
So recently I stick with merge commits as you advise.
If you only rebase, no modification to the commits, everyone can rebase to stay up-to-date. Merge conflicts still happen, but git will understand you already have other commits.
But yes, a shared feature branch should be treated as a shared branch.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
For long, I was merge-averse on feature branches, and used rebase too. But it gets messy once others start interacting with your branches, since after the rebase you need a forced push. That ruins others' state.
So recently I stick with merge commits as you advise.
If you only rebase, no modification to the commits, everyone can rebase to stay up-to-date. Merge conflicts still happen, but git will understand you already have other commits.
But yes, a shared feature branch should be treated as a shared branch.