It's ultimately a tooling problem - Git doesn't have a good way of "tagging" feature branches to be ignored. It's concept of branches is limited - There's only places where there's more than one parent commit, and which is which is unclear. If you handle it badly, you end up with an unreadable history, littered with 'f' commits and junk, rather than having a nice linear history you can run regressions on.
I don't think this is a problem with Git, per-se - I think it's a problem with the tooling we use to interpret it, and the tooling we use to commit to it. But there's a lot of "valid but invalid" ways you can use it, and writing good tooling for different flows is hard, so nobody's invested in it a bunch.
I don't think this is a problem with Git, per-se - I think it's a problem with the tooling we use to interpret it, and the tooling we use to commit to it. But there's a lot of "valid but invalid" ways you can use it, and writing good tooling for different flows is hard, so nobody's invested in it a bunch.