Some interesting arguments are presented in this article but there are a couple of pretty important issues this workflow totally elides. First of all, where are code reviews? If you're committing directly to master, does that mean every commit has to get reviewed before it can be merged? So in fact you are creating a new branch for every commit and then merging it into master (presumably amending to address review comments). So now you are back at square one. Secondly, how do people work concurrently without constantly pulling/merging? I suppose you could argue it's better to resolve small conflicts frequently than to address them all at once, but surely there are times when a developer needs to be able to work unfettered.
Overall I like the idea of working incrementally and ensuring that every commit adds value. I'm just not sure about the specific git workflow presented here.
Overall I like the idea of working incrementally and ensuring that every commit adds value. I'm just not sure about the specific git workflow presented here.