Remote teams have specific Git pain points. Someone's always out of sync, merge conflicts happen at the worst times, and coordinating releases across time zones gets messy.

How do we avoid constant merge conflicts?

Pull often, push often, keep changes small. Conflicts happen when two people edit the same code. The longer you work in isolation, the higher the odds. I've watched teams cut conflict rates by 60% just by pulling from main twice daily instead of once before merging.

What's the best way to review code asynchronously?

Small, focused pull requests with context in the description. A 2000-line PR with no explanation sits for days because nobody wants to review it. Five 400-line PRs with clear descriptions about what changed and why? Those get reviewed within hours.

Should we squash commits when merging?

Depends on your commit quality. Clean, logical commits that tell a story? Keep them. Twenty "fix typo" and "actually fix it" commits? Squash them. The goal is a main branch where each commit makes sense on its own.

How do we handle database migrations in version control?

Timestamp your migration files. migration_20241201_add_user_index.sql prevents the nightmare where two developers create migrations with the same number. Also commit migration files before the code that uses them - makes rollbacks cleaner.

What about managing environment-specific config?

Never commit actual credentials or API keys. Use .env files locally, keep .env.example in version control with dummy values. Real config goes in your deployment system. I've seen production databases wiped because someone committed credentials and another developer used them in development.

How do we coordinate releases across time zones?

Tag releases explicitly. git tag v2.3.1 followed by git push origin v2.3.1 creates a permanent marker everyone can reference. Document your tagging convention - semantic versioning works for most teams. When someone in Tokyo asks what's in production, they can check tags instead of hunting through commits.