It is given: only ready functional should fall into master.

Development is carried out in the dev branch, periodically there is a two-way exchange of commits between them (rebase from master to dev and merge from dev to master).

This workflow worked as long as there were trivial sequential changes.

There were problems with the implementation of a very “long” feature, which also provides several implementation options.

Those. I need to be distracted from the implementation of this features and do other things. EU, but I have to commit the unfinished changes from the still unrealized feature, so that the exchange of commits continues to function.

It is clear that you need to use several long-lived feature branches, sent from dev.

I think the proposal of the “senor” to use stash (pockets) in this case is not very good.

What should I do next?

  • I honestly did not understand much, but if you have a long feature branch, it means you need to update it periodically from dev. Either through merge, or rebase - whatever you like. - ixSci
  • Based on the article, I realized that you need to make feature branches. - hellboy
  • There is nothing mandatory, you need to act according to your requirements, and not what is written on the habr. Yes, working through the feature branch is convenient and I have not yet seen the opposite. And your problem did not make this clearer, by the way - ixSci
  • I simply never worked at the same time with two implementations of one feature. The first option is quick and dirty should be ready faster, the second implementation takes more time, although it is more preferable. But it needs to be done only when the first version is ready. - hellboy
  • make two branches, one for a quick option, the other for a long one - complete the first one and proceed to the second. I do not understand the problem - ixSci

0