What would occur if you continuously commit without merging?

When you continuously commit without merging, branches can become cluttered with unnecessary commits. This happens because each individual commit represents a change made to the codebase, and without merging, these changes accumulate in the branch without contributing to a cohesive or meaningful progression of the project.

As a result, developers may find it increasingly difficult to navigate the commit history, leading to confusion about which changes are relevant and which are not. This clutter hampers collaboration, as team members might struggle to understand the evolution of the code and may inadvertently introduce conflicts when they attempt to merge or interact with the branch later.

The other options present scenarios that don't accurately reflect the behavior of version control systems. For instance, commits do not simply become lost or untrackable as the version control system maintains a history, and while commits could exist without merges, their standalone nature often leads to confusion in collaborative environments. Additionally, commits are not archived in a manner that makes them inaccessible; they remain part of the project's history unless actively pruned or deleted.