I am a fairly committed practitioner of git flow on multiple projects. The problem of not easily linking feature branch names to issues is real, though I have

I am a fairly committed practitioner of git flow on multiple projects. The problem of not easily linking feature branch names to issues is real, though I have been solving this using: `[issue id]/feature-or-issue-title-abbreviated` And while you don’t get nice hyperlinking from the branch references on GitHub—-and it’s possible for the issue title to be out of sync with the feature branch name at times, it isn’t too bad and I don’t often need to go back and look at a feature branch. Perhaps projects with bigger teams this is more important and the linking / strong issue attribution to the branches is more meaningful. I’m less clear on the removal `develop`. It makes more sense to me to use master as this serious “released” state. And for develop to be a bit more loose. More importantly, I typically will run `develop` on a staging instance. So it’s pretty important to me. I still do testing on ‘develop’ and feature branches before they are merged. I also don’t feel like the start / finish release process is all that onerous. From a commercial standpoint, I’m not a huge fan of tossing GitLab into the concept name. It’s a little brand-y on something that just doesn’t need it.