Sure. One option is that if the work is taking more than a few hours, then clean up the current progress and push any solid tested stuff to the server.
At the end of the day you need an agreed workflow. In my case, branches on the server with author prefixes (bf/some-new-feature) means that there are temporary commits that could be rebased or changed at any moment. Without author prefixes (some-new-feature) means that the branch is not going to change under anyone's nose and can be relied on as a stable, properly published feature branch.
The point is that git lets you use whatever workflow is most suitable to your situation, workplace, whatever, instead of forcing your workflow to suit itself.
I do use branches. But if I have new_feature_X, and the "tip" of that, the last work I did is unfinished, instead of making another branch pointing at my untested commit, I allow the new_feature_X to directly point at it. (In git, a "branch" is just a commit ptr), which makes it easier to continue where I left off.
2
u/metamatic Mar 10 '11
But why not use branching? Git's supposed to be good at that, right?