3 ms·
This article has actually been around for a while. Explains it really great. But one advice from me is that try to choose only what is sufficient to your projec
by useryMcUserface 10y ago
This article has actually been around for a while. Explains it really great. But one advice from me is that try to choose only what is sufficient to your project and team. No benefit in being overequipped for a simple job.
- scarecrowbob 10y agoI agree--- I've worked with several of these, but for most of the (smallish) projects we do, we end up coming back to a centralized repository, occasionally using feature branches if necessary. We're a small shop with only 1 or 2 folks working on the code at a time, and mostly are using git as part of our deploy process... so simplest is the best for us.
- edu 10y agoThis, over complicating the git workflow will make people not using it. In my experience the feature branch works for 80% of the projects, gitflow works for bit projects and I guess (no experience there) that the forking will work for open source projects or HUGE code bases.
- lamontcg 10y agoeven reasonably large open source projects don't need anything beyond feature branches and one long-lived master branch. and if you're going to back port to historical releases and hotfix and or patch them, its better to fork off master and then cherry-pick back, and then eventually end those branches.