[quickthrower2]

My favourite workflow is feature branches for a about 1-2 days work. If the feature takes longer then split it up into multiple code/code review/merge to master iterations. Use a feature flag if required.

This keeps merge conflicts low and keeps screwing up master to a minimum.

[usrusr]

That sounds nice, where I work there's a deeply ingrained problem of long lived feature branches. In that situation every little nudge towards earlier merges is valuable, so we call that merge target branch "develop", only to be less intimidating. Master formally exists, but it's just a dead bookmark pointing at the tag of the latest release, existing only to make develop appear more inviting.

[shearnie]

This is what we do also. Monster PR's get glancing reviews and are risky and diruptive to everyone else's feature branches when they merge latest. So the smaller the better. Quicker integrations. Less mess. Less risk.