DEV Community

Discussion on: Why you should not use (long-lived) feature branches

toastking profile image
Matt Del Signore

Yeah when I think of feature branches I think of something that's around for a week or two at most. Committing stuff to trunk is hard because you can't make small, incremental commits that might be a bit sloppy. Having a feature branch can make saving your state less stressful because you don't have to worry about others seeing your commit that says "oops I broke this now it's good".

Thread Thread
rgeraldporter profile image
Rob Porter

Yep, also confused here somewhat, always thought of "feature branches" as being around for anywhere from minutes to days at worst. GitHub has no mechanism for code-reviewing individual commits, so I don't know how you'd do reviews on the main branch anyways.

(For longer-term branches, I had thought the term was "project branch", which is a collection of feature branches.)

Thread Thread
jpdelimat profile image
Jean-Paul Delimat Author

Thanks for the comments!

I have updated the title and added this to the introduction: "For the sake of clarity: this article assumes a feature branch will carry the whole feature you are developing and is a so called 'long-lived' feature branch that will last 1 week or more. It's not a "no branches at all" mantra."