Why we use branches
We've been describing a git workflow that relies heavily on branches. This isn't the only way to use Git. In fact, the most obvious way to use Git is how the Git manual first tells us to: push all commits to a single
This works for solo developers, but it breaks down once you have two or more on the team. Let's go through the problems that would come up in a single-branch model.
Problem: changes aren't contiguous
X - X - O - O - X - O X - X - X - O - O - O Working on a single branch Working using feature branches (interleaved) (contiguous)
If two people are working on 2 features, their commits may end up being interleaved. That is, for features
O, the commits for either feature may not show up next to each other. This makes reviewing changes more difficult.
Problem: changes can't be reverted
To revert a feature that spans multiple commits, all those commits have to be reverted individually.
# Single-branch workflow: reverting each commit individually git revert 1a84c2b9 git revert 9bf3cb70 git revert 6b9c5cb4 git revert 215c3820
Git solves this by grouping multiple commits together into a single merge commit. This is what happens when a pull request is merged. This merge commit can then be reverted, and doing so will revert all commits that it groups together.
# Feature branch workflow: only one commit to revert # (Assuming 75a6c2a0 is a merge commit) git revert 75a6c2a0 -m 1
Problem: reviewing is difficult
It becomes harder to review changes when they're not contiguous or grouped in any way. By grouping them together, you can create a GitHub pull request where your peers can browse through your changes easily.
The Git workflow described in this chapter is a logical evolution brought about by the problems above. By compartmentalizing each piece of work into branches, we make it easier to manage large amounts of work over long periods of time.
Next: Let's recap what we've learned.