| ▲ | steveklabnik 5 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> For someone new to version control, committing to an unnamed branch doesn't seem like a desired operation no matter which system you're using. We have data on this! I can't cite anything public, but companies like Meta have to train people who are used to git to use tools like sapling, which does not require named branches. In my understanding, at first, people tend to name their branches, but because they don't have to, they quickly end up moving towards not naming. > What's wrong with requiring branches to be named? Because it's not necessary. It's an extra step that doesn't bring any real benefits, so why bother? Now, in some cases, a name is useful. For example, knowing which branch is trunk. But for normal development and submitting changes? It's just extra work to name the branch, and it's going to go away anyway. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | fragmede 3 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Fascinating. The benefit it brings is you can map the branch to its name. Of the, say, 10 branches you've got checked out, how do you know which branch maps to jira-123 and which one maps to jira-234, or if you're using names, which anonymous branch maps to addFeatureA or fixBugB? More to the point though, what tooling is there on top of raw jj/git? Specifically, there's a jira cli (well, multiple) as well as a gh cli for github as well as gitlab has one as well. When you call the script that submits the branch to jira/github/gitlab, how does it get the ticket name to submit the code to the system under? Hopefully no one's actually opening up jira/github/gitlab by hand and having to click a bunch of buttons! So I'll be totally transparent about my bias here in that my tooling relies on the branch being named jira-123 so it submits it to jira and github from the command line and uses the branch name as part of the automated PR creation and jira ticket modification. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||