A Simply Successful Git Branching Model
I’m designing this Git workflow based on the well known A successful Git branching model of Vincent Driessen (known as the gitflow), but somewhat simpler, hence the title. The target user is a smallish team (an organization in Github terminology) that
- does not practice rigorous continuous integration or automated testing, hence does not guarantee a certain branch is always in a deployable state;
- develops “service software”—meaning that the mode of work is largely that the deployment “head” moves forward, and there is rarely a need to maintain multiple production versions simultaneously.
I make two changes to gitflow:
- there are no release branches—release is made from master;
rebasein some situations, rather than always
The subject of most of the descriptions below is one repository.
- master is for end user.
- develop is for team.
- feature is for a single developer.
- feature makes Github ‘pull requests’ to develop.
- pull requests are code reviewed and
git merged into develop (or rejected).
git rebasefeature on top of develop (to bring other people’s changes to develop into a feature branch).
git mergedevelop into master by designated people (from time to time).
- deploy from master by designated people.
‘master’ and ‘develop’ branches
These are the only long-lived branches.
- designate develop as the default branch;
- make both branches protected, therefore
--force pushand certain other potentially dangerous things are not allowed;
- make master restricted to one or two release managers in terms of
pushprivilege. These release managers should be lead developers. Some project manager or team head who created the repo (simply because they are admins of the Github account) may automatically get the power to
push, but they should not use the privilege unless they are also designated as release managers.
pushto develop should always be done via pull requests, thereby help to enforce code review.
- team members get familiar with each other’s code via reviewing pull requests or browsing the develop branch.
git mergedevelop into master (by a release manager)
- Test the
- When ready, deploy the
- Make a release on Github:
HEADof master (using a tag name such as ‘release-20160723’), write some release notes.
git mergemaster into develop (in case there were any code changes during the pre-release testing on master).
- Delete all fix branches created during pre-release testing.
Bug fixes during pre-release testing:
- Create a bug fix branch off of master.
- Basic testing in the fix branch.
- When ready,
mergethe fix branch into master (probably via pull requests, to be merged by a release manager).
- Continue pre-release testing on the
HEADof master. Repeat fix-branching / fixing / merging back as needed. This bug-fix excursion happens between steps 2 and 3 in the procedure above.
In this procedure, release (and pre-release testing) builds are always made off of the
HEAD of master.
This will give automation scripts an easy time (e.g. the script may simply always use
HEAD of master,
and does not worry about commit tags, etc.).
Let me emphasize: do not touch the master branch except when making a release.
Hot fix on production
Assume the version in production is always the latest release tag in master. If the process is followed strictly, there should be no commits on master since this tag. (Please try to make this the case. Otherwise be prepared for some headaches.)
In the case that an urgent hox fix needs to be done on the version that is currently in production, do the following:
- Branch off of master to work on the fix.
- This puts master in the pre-release role and the new branch is a fix branch during pre-release testing. Follow the release procedure above from this point on (i.e. steps 2–6).
This is where daily development happens.
- Create a new branch off of develop, with a descriptive name, like feature-a.
- Work on the feature.
git pushto the cloud at least daily for safe storage.
Integrate new changes (made by other developers) in develop into feature-a, often, like daily.
If no one is collaborating on branch feature-a with you,
rebasehas some advantages:
git checkout develop git pull git checkout feature-a git rebase develop -i
In some situations, as long as your local work on feature-a has not been
pushed to Github, hence is not yet visible to others, you could use
rebaseregardless of the existence of collaboration . I think this could get tricky; I have no experience with this.
If you are not the only one working on branch feature-a, or if you’re nervous about
rebase, then use
git checkout develop git pull git checkout feature-a git merge develop
Resolve conflicts, if any, of course.
Run tests. Fix bugs until tests pass.
git pushbranch feature-a to the cloud.
Integrate feature-a into develop, at milestones.
Strictly speaking, integrate feature-a into develop only if (1) this feature is going to be part of the next (i.e. upcoming) release, and (2) you want to integrate from time to time so that the progress is visible to collaborators and gets reviewed.
Practically, if this feature’s code is in a separate directory, and does not interfere with other code (that is, the code won’t be called, hence won’t do any harm even if it’s half-baked and broken), then whether this feature will be part of the upcoming release does not matter that much.
Every time you have finished a functionality and have brought feature-a to a reasonably tested, functional state, consider making this progress visible to others by integrating it into develop:
First, integrate develop into feature-a as described above.
Then, go to Github online and create a pull request to merge feature-a into develop.
Wait for code review and acceptance. React to comments and make changes as needed.
Depending on the modularity of your work, such milestones may happen a couple of times a week. Do not make this milestone cycle too long. Do break up your big project into tasks that can be finished in a few days.
- Once feature-a has been integrated into develop, and you’re done with the feature for good or for a indefinite period of time, delete branch feature-a both on your local machine and on Github. Feature branches are temporary. Don’t keep many feature branches floating around. Kill them.
Sometimes a feature branch serves as a big ‘base’ branch for a large feature that is worked on by multiple developers. In this situation, the developers create branches off of this base feature branch. Their relation with this base branch is not unlike that of feature-a with develop as described above. However, don’t make it too complicated.
Code re-organization within and between repositories
Do not resist re-organization if that improves structure, modularity, and maintainability—in other words, quality—of the code.
Within a repo, if some code is deprecated but you want to keep them for reference, do not use a dedicated branch to keep (indeed, hide) the code. Instead, move it to a non-interfering directory (I name the directory ‘archive’ or ‘obsolete’) on the top level in the repo, so that the code remains visible going forward.
I like to think that directory is for horizontal separation, whereas branch is for vertical separation. The former is permanent; the latter, temporary. The dead code example above is horizontal separation.
After some time, it may become clear that all the code does not belong in the same repo. You want to move part of the code out of the repo. Simply move the code into ‘archive’ in the current repo (remember to add some notes), then copy the code into its new home repo, where it will start with no history. (Its history stays in the ‘archive’ folder in the old repo.)