Branch owners are already easily visible on Github and by commit owner, therefore naming branches by owner doesn't provide much additional information. Additionally, people tend to reuse the same branch when naming by owner. This causes issues with Github's diffing system since Github uses the start of the branch and the end of the branch to show diffs, not strictly the diff between the current branch and the target branch. Not merging main back into the branch is also an issue.
Naming by feature allows developers to see both branch owners and the feature they are working on. While a task tracker can help with this, seeing both through Git can increase visibility of ongoing tasks. When developers know what other developers are working on, they can communicate better and avoid merge conflicts more easily.
Branch owners are already easily visible on Github and by commit owner, therefore naming branches by owner doesn't provide much additional information. Additionally, people tend to reuse the same branch when naming by owner. This causes issues with Github's diffing system since Github uses the start of the branch and the end of the branch to show diffs, not strictly the diff between the current branch and the target branch. Not merging main back into the branch is also an issue.
Naming by feature allows developers to see both branch owners and the feature they are working on. While a task tracker can help with this, seeing both through Git can increase visibility of ongoing tasks. When developers know what other developers are working on, they can communicate better and avoid merge conflicts more easily.