Defending "GitFlow"

I've noticed a trend of defending what is mistakenly believed to be GitFlow.

I’ve noticed a trend recently in several online conversations: People defending what they believe is “GitFlow”, only to discover they don’t necissarily understand what GitFlow even is.

A choice quote:

It’s a common misconception that GitFlow requires long-lived branches. It doesn’t.

Actually, it does. It’s part of the definition of GitFlow, that you have at least two permanent branches: master and develop.

In another case, it turned out the supposed GitFlow defender was actually defending a git tool, which it turns out can be used without actually using the GitFlow process.

But the strongest defense I’ve heard of GitFlow is essentially, “the team isn’t ready for something else yet.” And in my opinion, that’s not a very strong argument, either.

In virtually all cases, there’s a simpler branching model, that’s less error-prone.

Share this