uuid: - value: 9fcb0f0b-9dfd-4a51-b465-79541d63b17b langcode: - value: en type: - target_id: daily_email target_type: node_type target_uuid: 8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7 revision_timestamp: - value: '2025-05-11T09:00:01+00:00' revision_uid: - target_type: user target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849 revision_log: { } status: - value: true uid: - target_type: user target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849 title: - value: 'Feature branches cause merge conflicts' created: - value: '2025-02-18T00:00:00+00:00' changed: - value: '2025-05-11T09:00:01+00:00' promote: - value: false sticky: - value: false default_langcode: - value: true revision_translation_affected: - value: true path: - alias: /daily/2025/02/18/conflicts langcode: en body: - value: |
A common approach I see on software projects is where Developers create separate Git branches for each task they work on.
This commonly matches issues or ticket on a sprint board or issue tracker.
Each ticket is worked on independently and merged into a long-lived mainline branch once complete.
This type of approach is commonly called Git Flow or GitHub Flow.
It's something I've given presentations on in the past.
A common downfall is that different branches can conflict with each other - either due to a merge conflict where the same lines are changed in different branches, or incompatible code is written that works separately but not when merged together.
I used to work this way, even when working on projects as the only Developer.
One time, I was demoing two features to a client and needed to switch branches and doing so broke what it was trying to show.
These days, I avoid conflicts between branches by not branching.
Everyone works on a single branch and pulls and pushes changes regularly.
If you're doing continuous integration, that should be once a day as an absolute minimum.
I do test-driven development and usually commit after each passing test.
If you work on a single branch and pull and push changes regularly, you're much less likely to get merge conflicts and Developers can focus on pushing code instead of fixing merge conflicts.
format: full_html processed: |A common approach I see on software projects is where Developers create separate Git branches for each task they work on.
This commonly matches issues or ticket on a sprint board or issue tracker.
Each ticket is worked on independently and merged into a long-lived mainline branch once complete.
This type of approach is commonly called Git Flow or GitHub Flow.
It's something I've given presentations on in the past.
A common downfall is that different branches can conflict with each other - either due to a merge conflict where the same lines are changed in different branches, or incompatible code is written that works separately but not when merged together.
I used to work this way, even when working on projects as the only Developer.
One time, I was demoing two features to a client and needed to switch branches and doing so broke what it was trying to show.
These days, I avoid conflicts between branches by not branching.
Everyone works on a single branch and pulls and pushes changes regularly.
If you're doing continuous integration, that should be once a day as an absolute minimum.
I do test-driven development and usually commit after each passing test.
If you work on a single branch and pull and push changes regularly, you're much less likely to get merge conflicts and Developers can focus on pushing code instead of fixing merge conflicts.
summary: null field_daily_email_cta: { }