[Delk]

> What I think is happening is that someone didn't like the process you had and tried to solve/replace that with a more modern way, e.g. having feature branch, release branches, master, etc... and that it easier to technically achieve with git than with svn.

Either that, or someone read up on what are often considered best practices with git, and then pushed that as the new process in order to be diligent when git was adopted.

There's not enough context to tell whether the process change is a solution to an actual problem or doing it because others are doing it, too.

Most of the stuff (feature branches, review of major merges) are good ideas to do, though, and something you begin to appreciate once you've got used to them. Honestly, I want a feature branch at approximately the point where I realize the feature change is going to take more than two commits or is nontrivial in almost any way. I'm not sure about requiring a review/approval for every little change if it's earlier in development, and I can understand frustration with that, but that's not really a tool-mandated process, as you say.