[withinboredom]

This simply isn’t true unless you have to put everything in one commit?

To be honest, I usually get this with people who have never realized that you can merge dead code (code that is never called). You can basically merge an entire feature this way, with the last PR “turning it on” or adding a feature flag — optionally removing the old code at this point as well.

[monsieurbanana]

So maintaining old and new code for X amounts of time? That sounds acceptable in some limited cases, and terrible in many others. If the code is being changed for another reason, or the new feature needs to update code used in many places, etc. It can be much more practical to just have a long-lived branch, merge changes from upstream yourself, and merge when it's ready.

My industry is also fairly strictly regulated and we plainly cannot do that even if we wanted to, but that's admittedly a niche case.

[withinboredom]

> So maintaining old and new code for X amounts of time?

No more than normal? Generally speaking, the author working on the feature is the only one who’s working on the new code, right? The whole team can see it, but generally isn’t using it.

> If the code is being changed for another reason, or the new feature needs to update code used in many places, etc. It can be much more practical to just have a long-lived branch, merge changes from upstream yourself, and merge when it's ready.

If you have people good at what they do ... maybe. I’ve seen this end very badly due to merge artefacts, so I wouldn’t recommend doing any merges, but rebasing instead. In any case, you can always copy a function to another function: do_something_v2(). Then after you remove the v1, remove the v2 prefix. It isn’t rocket science.

> My industry is also fairly strictly regulated and we plainly cannot do that even if we wanted to, but that's admittedly a niche case.

I can’t think of any regulations in any country (and I know of a lot of them) that dictate how you do code changes. The only thing I can think of is your own company’s policies in relation to those regulations; in which case, you can change your own policies.

[monsieurbanana]

Medical industry, code that gets shipped has to be documented, even if it's not used. It doesn't mean we can't ship unused code, it just means it's generally a pretty bad idea to do it. Maybe the feature's requirement might change during implementation, or you wanted to do a minor version release but that dead code is for a feature that needs to go into a major version (because of regulations).

> I can’t think of any regulations in any country (and I know of a lot of them) that dictate how you do code changes

https://blog.johner-institute.com/regulatory-affairs/design-...

[withinboredom]

That document doesn’t say that, as far as I can tell. If you’re using a compiled language, the dead code likely gets removed anyway, it is never shipped.

[closeparen]

Our regulatory compliance regime hates it when we run non-main branches in production and specifically requires us to use feature flagging in order to delay rollouts of new code paths to higher-risk markets. YMMV.