> The author of "GitFlow Considered Harmful" put out a simpler workflow that achieves all the upsides of GitFlow with none of the downsides:
I see no relevant difference between that workflow and GitFlow, besides the rebranding of old concepts and some unexplained focus on merging options.
I've also revisited the author's old rant from 2015 regarding gitflow and the only tangible criticism he had was the separation of the master/mainline and development branches, which is extremely shortsighted and miopic as it fails to acknowledge the reality of non-CICD/old-fashined software release lifecycles.
GitFlow has one main concept: using feature branches to do develop work, use release-specific branches to integrate changes, establish and enforce upstream/downstream relationships between branches. The rest is just rebranding and nit-picking over semantics.
I see no relevant difference between that workflow and GitFlow, besides the rebranding of old concepts and some unexplained focus on merging options.
I've also revisited the author's old rant from 2015 regarding gitflow and the only tangible criticism he had was the separation of the master/mainline and development branches, which is extremely shortsighted and miopic as it fails to acknowledge the reality of non-CICD/old-fashined software release lifecycles.
GitFlow has one main concept: using feature branches to do develop work, use release-specific branches to integrate changes, establish and enforce upstream/downstream relationships between branches. The rest is just rebranding and nit-picking over semantics.