[jsunderland323]

I mean this is the struggle. And props to you for building that. It's an ugly problem.

I actually do think (and have personal evidence now to believe) that most functions adjacent to engineering can learn distributed version control. Once you start using it, you really don't want to go back.

We've internally adopted trunk based development for our assets and it gets rid of 99% of the confusing parts of version control to not use branches (I know blasphemy). My designer just pulls and pushes on the main branch and I do the same -- we've had very very few merge conflicts and none that couldn't be resolved in 30 seconds.

I feel silly now having spent so much time on branching as a feature. It makes a lot of sense for plain text and code but it probably doesn't matter that much (for small teams) for visual things. Merging has proven to be invaluable to us though.

[jbverschoor]

Every clone in git is a branch. People like to enterprisify things, resulting in miserable people, wasted time, and money flowing into consulting firms.

Remember, git replaced tarballs

[jsunderland323]

Exactly! This was actually Linus' point when he was explaining git to companies still on cvs. "You're all already using branches anyway".

I think if you're in a low-trust enterprise environment, branches kind of make sense because you get the additional scrutiny of code-review and merges occur on a centralized server but if you're in a four person team where you trust everyone just use the main branch and resolve locally.

> Remember, git replaced tarballs

I would refine that to say 3-way-merging replaced tarballs but yes!