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 main or production 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 production. Nothing more, nothing less.

git cherry-pick <commit-hash>        

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.