Post History

You may know me so I am answering :P (someone close to you but you can't find me directly).

>Is it a good idea to have a permanent branch for a feature? 

Suppose, you have a permanent branch then you had PR 1 years later. Of course, there will be lots of changes in develop branch. But, you forgot to merge them in your branch. Suppose, in that PR you had made changes to line 10 page B. But, in develop branch they had deleted those lines and, they don't need those things anymore. So, your PR is useless. But, if go to merge develop to your branch then your PR then your code will be lost either. 

Making the time more shorter : Now, you are going to PR 5 days later. Suppose, the following code was looking like this in your branch.

```java
if(a<b){
   System.out.println(b+" is greater than "+a);
}
```

You had commited that [^1]
```java
if(a<b){
   System.out.println(a+" is less than "+b);
}
```

But, in develop staffs had already done that. Or, removed SOUT and added something else. If you go to merge then your commit will be lost. 

If you just commit in page A and, other developers don't touch that page than you can permanently use a branch rather than creating new ones. Cause, it won't affect much more. Most of your commit was on Codegolf.js so, if you want you can use a permanent branch. But, if you want to work on other files then you can use "temporarily" branch.

[^1]: I know both context represent same thing. I am just giving an example.