| There is a need for simplified workflows, but this sounds and looks like an exercise in brand marketing more than a good analysis on how to offer a better Git workflows. > Git flow forces developers to use the develop branch rather than the master. Because most tools default to using the master, there’s a significant amount of branch switching involved. I'd like to see this fleshed out, since whatever branch naming convention or roles you use, you will be switching the same amount. > Another frustrating aspect is hotfix and release branches, which are overkill for most organizations and completely unnecessary in companies practicing continuous delivery. Yes and no. If you don't separate master from develop, hotfix branches just work like feature branches. But if you need them separated, then... > Bug fixes/hot fix patches are cherry-picked from master Avoid doing this, use daggy fixes[1], and it will make it breeze to check that a fix was actually merged and where[2]. And if you do cherry pick, at least use "-x". [1] https://wiki.monotone.ca/DaggyFixes [2] git branch --contains <commit> |