[mibbit]

As I say, I've worked in a team where branching was tried. It was a hinderance and slowed down development. I've never seen the point of branching for my own personal use.

Others may have different experiences, especially if they work on large teams.

The only reason I can see to "branch" is when you deploy code, make a copy of it in the repos, so that you can fix any bugs off it quickly.

[rpearl]

As I say, branching is not something that a "team" does. Branches in git are not something that are published, in nearly every case. Branches are not something like "the dev branch" and "the stable branch". If you are referring to that, in your vague and nonspecifc way, then we are talking about different things.

Branches are feature isolation. For every different feature you add or bug you fix, you, personally and locally, create a branch to do so. If you think that is a lot of branches, you simply don't have the appropriate mental model. If you continue to think of a branch as "making a copy of it in the repos" (what does that even mean??) then, it's... just not the appropriate way to think about it.

Anyway, I'm not going to continue to have this conversation, since it's just not worth it. I just hope I don't have to work for a company that thinks that "branching is bad", but at least if I do they will never know that I am actually using features of my version control system (gasp!).

[mibbit]

It sounds like filling out TPS reports to me I'm afraid.

Some authors probably have tons of concurrent drafts of a novel they're writing. But I'll bet most have a single draft.

I'm afraid (to a fault), I am primarily a lone developer so this is the angle I come at these things from...