I’m curious to hear what everyone thinks about REPO implementations and practices. I know there are probably some hot takes and different viewpoints out there that people don’t usually share.
What aspects of REPO do you find problematic or think could be done better? Are there any common practices that you disagree with? Maybe you have some unpopular opinions about how things should work differently?
I’m looking for honest thoughts and experiences, even if they go against the mainstream thinking. Sometimes the most interesting discussions come from controversial viewpoints that challenge the status quo.
Feel free to share your genuine opinions, whether they’re about technical aspects, implementation strategies, or anything else related to REPO that you think needs to be discussed more openly.
REPO systems often feel overcomplicated for the basic tasks they serve. It’s easy to get caught up in fancy configurations when all you really need is a straightforward way to manage your files. I’ve seen teams waste so much time perfecting workflow setups instead of just diving into their actual work. It’s all about making the tools work for you, not the other way around.
The whole obsession with perfect commit histories is pretty overrated. Sure, clean commits are nice, but I’ve seen developers spend way too much time squashing and rebasing everything into these pristine little packages that look good but don’t really help anyone understand what actually happened during development. Sometimes the messy reality of how code evolved is more valuable than a sanitized version.
Most people overthink branching strategies way too much. I’ve worked on projects where we had like 6 different branch types and approval processes that took forever. Sometimes you just need to push code and move on instead of treating every tiny change like it’s mission critical.