Why You Shouldn’t Use Merge Requests in Critical Systems

In many teams today, Git workflows revolve around pull requests or merge requests. And for a lot of modern development, that makes sense — collaboration, automation, and fast delivery are essential.

But what if you're working on critical systems? Where downtime isn't an option, every deployment is high-stakes, and even the smallest bug could have serious consequences?

In these environments, standard Git flows — while popular — can introduce hidden risks.

Merge requests aren't always the answer. I’ll show you the method I use that’s safer and more controlled. It’s not trendy, but it's safe, controlled, and intentional — and it's helped us ship to production with confidence.

🚨 The Risk Behind Common Git Workflows

In most teams, developers create feature branches, open pull requests, and merge them into or after approval.

But in mission-critical systems, this flow can be dangerous:

• ✅ A PR might include more commits than you intended.

• ✅ Merge conflicts might be fixed too quickly (or incorrectly).

• ✅ The branch might pull in unrelated changes from others.

• ✅ The history becomes cluttered, making it hard to trace what went to production.

• ✅ CI/CD pipelines don’t always catch edge cases or real-world failures.

Pull requests are great for teams and visibility, but they often mean trusting the branch state — and that’s a big leap when your system can’t afford surprises.

🛠️ The Alternative Safer: Cherry-Pick + Controlled Rebase

Instead of relying on merge requests, a more surgical and deliberate Git process can be used:

1. Cherry-pick individual commits

Only the exact commits that are tested and approved go into . Nothing more, nothing less.

2. Rebase using common ancestor

To apply a group of commits cleanly, identify the common ancestor between the source and target branches. Then, rebase only the required commits to maintain a linear history and avoid unnecessary merge noise.

3. Use commit hashes for traceability

Each commit applied to production is documented along with its purpose, creating a simple and clean audit trail.

✅ Why This Workflow Works for Critical Systems

• 🔍 Full visibility: Know exactly what is going to production.

• 🔐 Minimal risk: No accidental merges. No surprises.

• 🧠 Intentional history: Easy to read, easy to audit.

• 🚫 No “merge pollution”: Avoid commits that weren’t meant to be released.

📊 Comparison: Common Git Flow vs Our Approach

👇 Final Thoughts

The default Git workflow isn't always the best fit for every context — especially in environments where precision, safety, and control matter more than speed.

If you're managing a critical system, ask yourself:

"Is the current Git process reducing risk — or just speeding things up?"

Cherry-picking and controlled rebasing go beyond Git commands — they reflect a disciplined approach to engineering with intent.