Comments by "Daniel Sandberg" (@ddanielsandberg) on "I’ve Found Something BETTER Than Pull Requests..." video.

  1. Because it doesn't work. Let's say you have 20 developers, and that each have their own feature branch. Even if all of them rebases from master every hour - how many changes are integrated to the other branches? None! They will stay continuously isolated and you won't know which branches that conflicts with which other branches until one of the conflicting branches is merged into main. CI/TBD is about exposing conflicts early by continuously integrating into mainline. It's nothing strange. What is strange is the obsession with branches to isolate changes and hide systemic issues.
    7
  2. Sounds like a bit of broken KanBan. Start by removing the "review" column and only have "doing" and "done" columns . Then set a WIP limit in doing. That way no one can start something new unless something moves out of "doing" and the only way to do that is to finish it. Then maybe the CI bit will start to click...
    3
  3. Changes must always work. Incomplete features can be hidden in a bunch of different ways; from build profiles to deployment or runtime configuration, to customer opt-in "try the new layout" options.
    2
  4. This is an awesome answer and mirrors what I've been trying to say for years but lacking the language to do so. (commenting to have a bookmark)
    2
  5. But most developers living in a FB/PR-driven environment does not have the capability to do that (due to bad architecture, build system, wrong technologies). They replace the tasks in build scripts with steps in a pipeline and the only way "to know if their changes works" is to make a feature branch and push to it.
    2
  6. So you're unable to argue the point and decide to poison the well with some kind of false dichotomy? Git is everywhere. Almost everyone knows it. Everything integrates; every tool, provider and system. That is why we are using Git. Implying that "we must use branches because we are using Git otherwise we would be using SVN" is a ridiculous position to have.
    2
  7. I'll paste my previous answer... for the 27316th time: "Because it doesn't work. Let's say you have 20 developers, and that each have their own feature branch. Even if all of them rebases from master every hour - how many changes are integrated to the other branches? None! They will stay continuously isolated and you won't know which branches that conflicts with which other branches until one of the conflicting branches is merged into main. CI/TBD is about exposing conflicts early by continuously integrating into mainline. It's nothing strange."
    2
  8.  @monarodan  This is the way.
    1
  9. Because we never hold on to changes for more than 10-15 minutes.
    1
  10. I'll paste my previous answer... for the 27315th time: "Because it doesn't work. Let's say you have 20 developers, and that each have their own feature branch. Even if all of them rebases from master every hour - how many changes are integrated to the other branches? None! They will stay continuously isolated and you won't know which branches that conflicts with which other branches until one of the conflicting branches is merged into main. CI/TBD is about exposing conflicts early by continuously integrating into mainline. It's nothing strange. What is strange is the obsession with branches to isolate changes and hide systemic issues."
    1