4 ms·

git flow never made sense for me. Because of the complexity some devs would always mess things up or ignore the branching altogether. Merging all the related br

git flow never made sense for me. Because of the complexity some devs would always mess things up or ignore the branching altogether. Merging all the related branches into master when doing a release took multiple days and often introduced subtle bugs. Switched at some point to GitHub flow and never looked back.

rimliu 7y ago
That's not the problem with git-flow, that's the problem with discipline.
- ulisesrmzroche 7y ago
  Gitflow is not robust enough to handle human error and is way too complex to onboard. It’s a mediocre branching model incapable of handling a modern workflow, like continuous delivery and so on We gotta tendency to excuse bad software as long as it’s old, especially on HN
  - anon73044 7y ago
    I've have 400+ devs acoss several states working with 25+ repos, all using a modified Gitflow. It took a month of negotiation to get buy in, so far, it's been working for the last 2 and a half years. And the beauty is, if a team wants to be more "agile"/more continuous, all we have to do is kill a few branches, and start building/releasing directly from master.
    - ulisesrmzroche 7y ago
      I work in a bigger place with a lot more repos in a company that’s used gitflow since it came out. What does have that to do with anything? Why do you use agile in quotation marks? Is there something wrong with your keyboard? What’s the deal?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
combatentropy 7y ago
> Merging all the related branches into master when doing a release ... --- doesn't sound like Gitflow. In Gitflow, the topic branches have been merged into the develop branch first, as they were finished. In contrast, merging into master is a merge from a single branch. You branch from develop into a release branch. Then you merge the release branch into master.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  What if you have multiple ongoing release (maintenance) branches whose changes should all be merged to master and develop? It quickly becomes messy (but to be fair so does most alternatives).

rimliu 7y ago

That's not the problem with git-flow, that's the problem with discipline.

ulisesrmzroche 7y ago
Gitflow is not robust enough to handle human error and is way too complex to onboard. It’s a mediocre branching model incapable of handling a modern workflow, like continuous delivery and so on We gotta tendency to excuse bad software as long as it’s old, especially on HN
- anon73044 7y ago
  I've have 400+ devs acoss several states working with 25+ repos, all using a modified Gitflow. It took a month of negotiation to get buy in, so far, it's been working for the last 2 and a half years. And the beauty is, if a team wants to be more "agile"/more continuous, all we have to do is kill a few branches, and start building/releasing directly from master.
  - ulisesrmzroche 7y ago
    I work in a bigger place with a lot more repos in a company that’s used gitflow since it came out. What does have that to do with anything? Why do you use agile in quotation marks? Is there something wrong with your keyboard? What’s the deal?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

combatentropy 7y ago

> Merging all the related branches into master when doing a release ... --- doesn't sound like Gitflow. In Gitflow, the topic branches have been merged into the develop branch first, as they were finished. In contrast, merging into master is a merge from a single branch. You branch from develop into a release branch. Then you merge the release branch into master.

alkonaut 7y ago
What if you have multiple ongoing release (maintenance) branches whose changes should all be merged to master and develop? It quickly becomes messy (but to be fair so does most alternatives).