why not always branch(make it default) when we clone in git? -
This question may sound strange, let me explain this.
I am recently learning GIT and I have a question. I have heard that people had said that whenever you have to add a new feature / bug fix repo, you can always be the branch, later you can be flexible in code roll out and deployment of production using merge and rebace. I've got this part
But why did not someone divide the project and add changes directly to the original / master? I almost feel like we do a repo clone, we always do the branches because we've got to complete the work and we do not want to mess up the original / master up. So, why do not we just make a new branch instead of a clone?
One of the workflows you are describing is possible, not only one more definite Imagine that you want to accelerate just on one project, then the branches and then the merger / merger will be back in the way of your work. . On the other hand, if you have been running for a long time, automatically branches will get you only 5S Bonus Top? In the long run, this is nothing.
Comments
Post a Comment