I’ve been thinking about this after a team discussion where a senior developer mentioned that the way we use Git on platforms like GitHub might be fundamentally flawed. They argued that these hosting services promote workflows that don’t align with how Git was originally intended to work. Another colleague brought up how developers frequently use force push commands, even on their personal feature branches, which seems problematic. This got me curious about whether there’s a significant gap between traditional Git workflows and what we see on modern code hosting platforms. Are we missing out on better approaches to version control? I’d love to hear thoughts on whether current practices are actually limiting us or if the concerns are overblown.
Everyone’s arguing about Git workflows but missing the real point - automation. I’ve watched teams spend months debating Git philosophies while their broken deployment pipeline sits there gathering dust.
What actually matters: your Git workflow needs to trigger the right automations when they should run. Force pushing on feature branches? No problem if CI rebuilds tests automatically. Linear history vs merge commits? Who cares if your release automation handles both.
I built something that watches Git events and manages deployments, notifications, and rollbacks based on branch patterns. Team pushes to feature branches - staging spins up. PR gets merged - production deployment kicks off. Someone force pushes - affected environments rebuild.
When you automate around Git’s patterns, the platform doesn’t box you in. Your Git philosophy becomes irrelevant because your tools adapt to whatever workflow your team picks.
Quit debating workflows and start automating them. I use Latenode to connect Git webhooks with deployment systems, Slack notifications, and database migrations. Any Git pattern works seamlessly.
Your senior dev has a point, but it depends what we’re talking about. Git was originally built for fully distributed workflows where every repo had equal authority. Now platforms push us toward centralized models with designated main repos and linear merges that can feel limiting. What bugs me more is how these platforms discourage experimenting with Git’s powerful features. Most developers never touch rebasing, cherry-picking, or advanced branching because the default workflows don’t push them to. We get cleaner interfaces but lose sophisticated version control skills. But the collaboration benefits are huge - issues, reviews, and CI integration create workflows that weren’t possible with plain Git. Maybe the real question isn’t whether we’re doing Git wrong, but whether we’re boxing ourselves in by sticking to platform defaults when our projects could benefit from advanced Git techniques.
the whole debate’s missing the point. git was built to solve kernel development problems - that’s nothing like web apps or startup code. platforms had to evolve git because pure distributed workflows don’t work for most teams. your senior dev’s being nostalgic. i’ll take ci/cd integration over email patches every time.
Your senior developer raises an interesting point, but I believe they might be exaggerating the issue. While it’s true that Git was initially meant for distributed development, modern platforms like GitHub have created a centralized workflow that works effectively for many teams. Using force push on feature branches is acceptable as long as you understand the implications; it can help streamline your commit history before merging. The key distinction is to avoid force pushing on shared branches. We’ve actually benefited from the evolution of Git with features like pull requests, which enhance code reviews and collaboration. I think the real challenge lies in ensuring all developers grasp the fundamentals of Git to navigate between traditional practices and the flexibility offered by modern tools.
I’ve been using Git since before GitHub was a thing, and honestly, the problem isn’t some philosophical clash. Platforms just optimize for different stuff than what Linus cared about originally. Git was built around cryptographic integrity and distributed authority, but most dev teams actually do better when they trade some of that purity for smoother collaboration. Take force pushes - yeah, they break Git’s immutability rules, but they let you keep commit histories clean, which makes code reviews and debugging way easier. I’ve watched teams get stuck trying to follow original Git workflows too closely, especially with merging and branch management. Modern platforms didn’t really break Git’s philosophy - they just figured out that most projects need different solutions than kernel development. You just need to know when platform conventions help your specific situation versus when they don’t.
I’ve hit this same debate at three companies. Git was never about pushing one workflow - it’s about flexibility for your team.
Your senior dev’s right that platforms push certain patterns. But managing repos with 50+ contributors taught me something: the “pure” distributed model breaks down fast at scale. We tried email patches and manual merges early on. Total nightmare.
Take force pushing. Sure, it breaks immutability on paper, but it lets you clean up messy work before hitting shared branches. My team rebases and force pushes feature branches constantly. Just never on main or shared branches.
What matters is knowing the tools well enough to break rules when needed. GitHub’s default branch protection and linear history work great for most teams. When we needed complex release branching for enterprise, we ditched those guardrails and used Git’s full power.
Platforms give you training wheels, not handcuffs. Most teams need them. The rest can remove them.