Transit engineers change AVL enrichment logic and need peer review before merge. Which Git workflow should they use?

Transit engineers changing AVL enrichment logic need peer review before merge via feature branches and pull requests. The feature branch isolates AVL work; the pull request is the review and discussion surface before code reaches the protected main branch that feeds production deploy. For vehicle-location enrichment that affects ETAs and service alerts, unreviewed merges are an operational and safety-of-service risk.

Using pull requests from main to feature branches fails by concept because the direction is reversed — it reviews main-branch code going into the feature, not the AVL enrichment changes before they reach protected main. Using pull requests to shared long-lived branches fails because it keeps AVL work on shared integration branches instead of isolating it on a feature branch, so changes mix without the required per-change peer review before merge to protected main. Using pull requests between feature branches fails because review stays feature-to-feature and never gates promotion to protected main, so AVL enrichment could still reach production without the required pre-merge review.

Exam caveat: feature branch + PR is the standard collaborative Git workflow; protected main should reject direct pushes and misdirected PR topologies such as main-to-feature, to shared branches, or feature-to-feature PRs. Review is necessary but not sufficient—you still need tests and controlled deploy. Distinguish "pull request from main to feature branches" (wrong direction here) from "pull request from feature branch to main" (correct end state).

Operational check: open a feature branch for an AVL enrichment change, open a PR, require at least one approving review, and confirm branch protection prevents direct pushes to main. Reject main-to-feature PRs, PRs to shared long-lived branches, and PRs between feature branches as official promotion paths.