[RHSeeger]

> Isn’t that a lot of extra work? IME it’s a lot less work (and risk!) than resolving a massive merge conflict. > > The problems with long-lived branches all derive from the basic problem that eventually the complexity of maintaining two parallel implementations affects the work of everyone at the company.

This seems to imply that there's a choice between A) committing to the main branch, and B) long lived branches. I always work on branches, almost always with multiple commits, and then merge it into the main development branch once the feature is complete. I almost never have to deal with complicated merge conflicts.

That being said, you're talking about short lived branches. The article talked about committing directly in the main trunk/master branch; which is what horrified me.