Gitflow seems a bit too complicated for my liking. I've been using Scott Chacon's "GitHub Flow"[0] for over three years, with the added twist that after the PR has been reviewed and approved, I rebase all of my commits to a single commit with a descriptive commit log of changes and a link to a Trello/Basecamp/whatever card for the feature. 0 - http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html
Ask HN: Who uses gitflow?
11–13 of 13 posts
Re: Ask HN: Who uses gitflow?
#12Gitflow seems a bit too complicated for my liking. I've been using Scott Chacon's "GitHub Flow"[0] for over three years, with the added twist that after the PR has been reviewed and approved, I rebase all of my commits to a single commit with a descriptive commit log of changes and a link to a Trello/Basecamp/whatever card for the feature. 0 - http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html
[0] http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html
Haha, whoops. Thank you.
Re: Ask HN: Who uses gitflow?
#13I recently started with a group that uses gitflow. It is my first experience with it. Thus my experience with it is pretty ignorant.
That said, it seems to be way too heavy weight to me. Especially given modern DVCS abilities. I literally cannot figure out the advantages of having a master branch and a development mainline vs just using tags.
Basically it seems to be a workflow with the assumption that branching is hard, based on a version control system where branching is easy.
TLDR; Ignorant view == skip it.