>> Would you simply revert master back to known working state and merge the
>> feature branch back in at a later date when its fixed and working?
>> (Wondering if doing something like that messes with the history and causes
>> problems down the line when merging feature branches into master?)
> If the changes made in a branch are not big, the merge will probably be
> simple. However, it can be a mess if the feature branch took a long time to
> be done. So, I think that the best way is to divide the feature in small
> tasks that don't take a long time to be completed and merged in the main
We are also trying to implement branch per task workflow in our company. To
do a feature X, we divide the feature into several small task that can be
done by several people. It is often that the task are depends on other
task, so we often have a situation where certain people need to wait for a
task to be merged into master before they can start their work. The task
that the other tasks depend on is probably has been (functionally)
finished, but still pending for approval due to code-review, sanity check,
This become a major problem for us. How do you handle such scenario?