If we end up with a feature branch that other developers would work on (pretty rare), we would just treat it like we do for master. Create a new branch off it, rebase and merge. Same workflow.
While it may be rare, I prefer a workflow that doesn't have any gotchas. If we never rebase anything that has been pushed, our workflow never requires the developer to wonder if anyone else might be affected by a rebase. My devs have enough to think about. The more I can take off their plate, the better.
That's the nice thing about git. It supports different workflows. So whatever works best for your team is what you should do. There is no right or wrong way.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
If we end up with a feature branch that other developers would work on (pretty rare), we would just treat it like we do for master. Create a new branch off it, rebase and merge. Same workflow.
While it may be rare, I prefer a workflow that doesn't have any gotchas. If we never rebase anything that has been pushed, our workflow never requires the developer to wonder if anyone else might be affected by a rebase. My devs have enough to think about. The more I can take off their plate, the better.
That's the nice thing about git. It supports different workflows. So whatever works best for your team is what you should do. There is no right or wrong way.