Git Workflow Explained: How to Choose the Right Branching Strategy in 2026

If you’ve ever found yourself staring at a merge conflict on a Friday afternoon, wondering if you should just quit your job and become a baker, you’re not alone. We’ve all been there. That moment of sheer panic usually happens because your team doesn’t have a clear strategy for how they handle code. Or worse, you’re using a strategy that is completely wrong for what you’re trying to build.

Here’s the deal: Git is incredibly flexible. You can basically do whatever you want with branches. You can branch off a branch, merge it back into itself, and generally create a tangled mess if you choose to. While this freedom is great for individual hackers, it’s a nightmare for teams. Without a set of rules—a workflow—collaboration becomes chaotic. Code reviews are unpredictable, and deployments turn into a game of Russian roulette.

Over the last decade, the way we work with Git has evolved dramatically. The strategies that made sense ten years ago are often considered bad practices today. Understanding why this evolution happened is the key to choosing the right workflow for your specific team and project.

In this article, we are going to break down the three main Git workflows that dominate the industry today: Git Flow, GitHub Flow, and Trunk-Based Development. We’ll look at how they evolved, why they exist, and—most importantly—when you should actually use each one.

Why Do We Even Need Different Workflows?

Before we dive into the specifics, let’s set the stage. When Git was first created, it didn’t come with a manual on how to structure your team. It just gave you the tools. As a result, teams started creating their own conventions—agreed-upon ways of working so everyone was on the same page.

But here’s the interesting part: there is no “one size fits all” solution. The right workflow for your team depends entirely on two things:

1. What you are building.
2. How you are deploying it.

Think about it this way: Are you building a mobile app that users download and install? In that case, you probably have users stuck on version 2.3 while you are already working on version 3.0. You need to support multiple versions at once.

Or, are you building a web application (SaaS) that lives in the cloud? You probably deploy updates continuously, multiple times a day. There is only one “version” live, and it’s the one on your server.

These two scenarios require completely different approaches. That is why we have seen an evolution in workflows.

1. Git Flow: The Old Guard

For a long time, if you asked a developer how they structured their code, they would say “Git Flow.” Introduced by Vincent Driessen in 2010, this became the industry standard for years.

In the early days of my engineering career, I used Git Flow extensively. It felt structured, professional, and safe. The idea behind Git Flow is that you have multiple long-lived branches, each serving a very specific purpose.

How It Works

Git Flow is rigid. It relies on a strict separation of concerns.

• Main (or Master): This branch contains code that is currently in production. It is sacred ground.
• Develop: This is the integration branch. It reflects the development environment. All new features eventually merge here.
• Feature Branches: When you start working on something new, you branch off from develop. When it’s done, you merge it back into develop.
• Release Branches: When the develop branch is ready for a release, you create a release branch. This is where you do final testing, bump version numbers, and prepare for deployment.
• Hotfix Branches: If something explodes in production, you create a hotfix branch directly from Main. You fix it, merge it back to Main, and also merge it back to Develop so the bug doesn’t reappear in the next version.

When Does This Make Sense?

Despite being considered outdated by many, Git Flow still has valid use cases. It shines when:

• You are shipping software in versions: Think desktop software you install (like an old-school .exe) or mobile apps.
• You need to support multiple versions simultaneously: If you have to release a patch for version 2.3 while your team is coding version 3.0, Git Flow handles this elegantly.
• You are in a regulated industry: If every change needs approval and strict traceability (like banking software or medical devices), the structured nature of Git Flow makes auditing easier.

The Real-World Scenario

Let’s say you’re building a mobile app. Your users are all over the place—some are on version 2.3, some on 2.4, and some early adopters are on 3.0. Your product manager runs in and says, “We have a critical bug in version 2.3. Users are crashing!”

With Git Flow, you don’t panic. You create a hotfix branch from the Main branch at the exact point where version 2.3 was tagged. You fix the bug. Then, you merge that fix back into Main (to save the current users) and merge it back into Develop (to ensure the bug doesn’t exist in the upcoming 3.0 release). It’s clean and organized.

The Downsides (Why It’s Considered “Bad Practice” Now)

Here is the ugly truth: for modern web development, Git Flow is often a total overkill.

1. It Slows You Down: Managing all these branches is a headache. You spend time creating release branches, merging hotfixes, and resolving conflicts between develop and main. It creates administrative overhead.
2. Merge Conflicts: Because feature branches live for a long time (days or weeks), they diverge significantly from the rest of the code. When you finally try to merge them back to develop, you are almost guaranteed to face massive merge conflicts.
3. It Hates Continuous Delivery: Git Flow is designed for “batch” releases—releasing software once a month or once a quarter. It is not designed for deploying to production ten times a day.

Even Vincent Driessen, the guy who invented Git Flow, eventually updated his original blog post to say: “If you are doing continuous delivery, you should probably use a simpler workflow.” That’s like the inventor of the fax machine telling you to use email instead.

Git Flow Summary Table

2. GitHub Flow: The Simple Sandwich

As the industry moved toward web applications and SaaS products, teams realized they didn’t need the complexity of Git Flow. They needed something faster. Enter GitHub Flow.

If Git Flow is a five-course meal with silverware and dress codes, GitHub Flow is a really good sandwich. It’s simple, fast, and it gets the job done.

How It Works

The core principle of GitHub Flow is a single, golden rule:

Anything in the Main branch must always be deployable.

That’s it. That is the entire philosophy.

1. You create a branch from Main.
2. You make your changes.
3. You open a Pull Request (PR).
4. You get it reviewed.
5. You merge it back to Main.
6. You deploy it immediately.

There is no develop branch. There are no release branches. There is just Main.

When Does This Make Sense?

GitHub Flow is perfect for modern teams who need to move fast.

1. Continuous Deployment: You are building a SaaS product, an API, or a web service where there is only one version: the one live on the server.
2. Small to Medium Teams: You don’t need a rigid bureaucracy to keep things organized.
3. Solid Automated Testing: This is crucial. Because you are merging straight to production multiple times a day, you need a suite of automated tests that runs immediately to catch bugs.
4. Speed Focus: You want to spend your time shipping features, not managing branch diagrams.

The Real-World Scenario

It’s Tuesday morning. You notice that users cannot upload profile pictures on your website.

In the Git Flow world, this might involve a discussion about which version is affected, creating a branch, waiting for a release window, etc.

In GitHub Flow, you just act.

• You create a branch called fix/profile-upload.
• You write the code fix.
• You open a PR.
• Your teammate reviews it while you grab a coffee.
• You merge it to Main.
• Your CI/CD pipeline detects the merge, runs the tests, and deploys it to production.

By lunchtime, the bug is fixed. Done.

The Challenges

While GitHub Flow is fantastic, it isn’t perfect. It demands a high level of discipline.

• No Versioning Support: If you need to support an old version of your software, GitHub Flow can’t help you. Everything goes straight to the latest production.
• Discipline is Mandatory: If a developer merges bad code and Main breaks, the whole pipeline stops. If your team treats Pull Requests like a formality or skips code review, you will have a bad time.
• Coordination Issues: If you have 50 developers all pushing to Main at once, you might start stepping on each other’s toes (though this is usually manageable if your PRs are small).

GitHub Flow Summary Table

3. Trunk-Based Development: The Elite Level

Now we get to my personal favorite and the current “best practice” for high-performing DevOps teams: Trunk-Based Development (TBD).

This is what the teams at Google, Amazon, and Netflix (generally) strive for. It takes the simplicity of GitHub Flow and cranks the speed up to eleven.

How It Works

In Trunk-Based Development, there are no long-lived branches. Period.

Some teams commit directly to Main. Others use short-lived branches that might exist for a few hours—maybe a day at most—but the key principle is Continuous Integration.

You commit code to the trunk (main) multiple times a day. But wait, you might ask, “If we commit half-finished features to main, won’t we break the app?”

This is the clever part. TBD relies heavily on Feature Flags (or feature toggles).

The Magic of Feature Flags

A feature flag is essentially a switch in your code.

if (featureFlags.newCheckoutFlow) {
  renderNewCheckout();
} else {
  renderOldCheckout();
}

Developers commit their code to Main constantly, but the new code is hidden behind these flags. The code is in production (deployed), but the users can’t see it. It’s not executed. When the feature is fully ready and tested, you simply flip the switch in your configuration, and the feature goes live for users.

The Real-World Scenario

Imagine three developers working on a massive new checkout feature. They are all committing to Main multiple times a day.

• Commit 1: Adds the database schema (hidden behind a flag).
• Commit 2: Adds the backend API (hidden behind a flag).
• Commit 3: Adds the button on the UI (hidden behind a flag).

All of this is going to production continuously. Automated tests run on every commit to ensure nothing broke existing functionality.

By Friday, the code is done. They haven’t had a single merge conflict because they were integrating small pieces every hour. They flip the feature flag. The new checkout is live.

When Does This Make Sense?

Trunk-Based Development is powerful, but it requires a mature environment.

1. Experienced Teams: You need developers who are disciplined and write clean code.
2. Bulletproof Automated Testing: This is non-negotiable. If you don’t have tests that cover 80%+ of your codebase, TBD is too risky.
3. Rapid Iteration: You want to deploy features, fix bugs, and get feedback as fast as humanly possible.
4. SaaS Products: Again, this is for hosted software where you control the environment.

Research from DORA (DevOps Research and Assessment) shows that elite teams using Trunk-Based Development have much higher deployment frequencies and much faster recovery times (if something breaks, they can fix it instantly because they are used to rapid cycles).

The Challenges

TBD feels reckless to traditional managers. It feels like “driving without a seatbelt.”

• The “Juniors” Problem: If you have junior developers who might accidentally push a syntax error or a bad logic change, they can break production. You need guardrails (like automated linting and blocking tests) to prevent this.
• Cultural Shift: It is a massive mindset change. Developers are used to working on a branch for a week before letting anyone see it. In TBD, your work is visible in the trunk almost immediately.
• Test Dependency: If your tests are weak, TBD will expose that weakness immediately. It will be painful until you fix your testing culture.

Trunk-Based Development Summary Table

The Evolution: Why Did We Change?

It’s fascinating to look at why these workflows evolved.

• 2010 (The Git Flow Era): Software was shipped in “versions.” You burned a CD, or you uploaded an installer. Deployment was risky, manual, and infrequent. You didn’t dare touch production often. Git Flow protected you from yourself by creating buffers (branches) between development and production.
• The Rise of SaaS: Suddenly, companies like Facebook and Netflix were updating their platforms without users even knowing. They weren’t “releasing versions”; they were continuously updating the service. Git Flow was too slow. You couldn’t wait for a release branch to merge when you wanted to fix a typo on the homepage. GitHub Flow emerged to cut the red tape.
• The DevOps Revolution: Tools got better. We got amazing CI/CD pipelines (Jenkins, GitHub Actions, CircleCI). We got Feature Flags (LaunchDarkly, Split.io). We got sophisticated automated testing. Because the technology improved, we could remove the “safety wheels” of branching and move to Trunk-Based Development. The evolution wasn’t just about changing habits; it was about the ecosystem enabling us to move faster.

Real-World Reflections: The Hybrid Approach

Here is a secret that you won’t find in textbooks: most teams don’t follow a pure workflow. They mix and match based on their specific pains.

Example 1: The “Almost” Trunk Team
I’ve worked with teams that love Trunk-Based Development but are scared to go “all in.” So, they compromise. They commit to Main frequently, but when it’s time for a big release, they create a release branch from Main just to stabilize for a few days before going live. It’s a hybrid approach.

Example 2: The Core Team vs. The External Team
Sometimes, a core internal team uses Trunk-Based Development because they trust each other and have great tests. But they allow external contributors or other teams to submit Pull Requests. The core team commits directly, but external code goes through a PR gate. This balances speed with safety.

Example 3: GitHub Flow with Feature Flags
Many teams use the GitHub Flow structure (branch, PR, merge) but implement Feature Flags. This allows them to merge code that isn’t “done” yet, giving them some of the benefits of Trunk-Based Development without the psychological pressure of committing straight to trunk.

The key takeaway? Don’t be a fundamentalist. Use what works.

Practical Tips for Implementing a Git Workflow

If you are reading this and thinking, “Okay, I need to fix my team’s mess,” here is a step-by-step guide to getting started.

1. Automate Everything

Regardless of which workflow you choose, automation is your best friend.

• Automated Tests: You cannot merge code if it breaks tests.
• Linting & Formatting: Let the computer enforce style guides so humans don’t have to argue about tabs vs. spaces in PRs.
• CI/CD Pipelines: Make sure the process of testing and deploying code is hands-off.

2. Document Your Process

Don’t assume everyone knows the rules. Write it down in your README.md or a wiki.

• “How do we name our branches?” (e.g., feature/ticket-123-description)
• “Who needs to approve a PR?”
• “What is the merge policy?” (Squash merge? Rebase?)
• “When do we deploy?”

3. Use the Right Tools

If you are doing Trunk-Based Development, look into tools like TBD Flow or similar CLI tools that help manage feature flags and conventional commits. If you are doing GitHub Flow, make sure your platform (GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket) is configured to protect the Main branch (requiring reviews and passing tests before a merge).

4. Measure Your Performance

You can’t improve what you don’t measure. Start tracking DORA metrics:

• Deployment Frequency: How often do you ship?
• Lead Time for Changes: How long does it take for code to go from “started” to “production”?
• Mean Time to Restore: How fast do you fix it when it breaks?

If you switch from Git Flow to GitHub Flow and your deployment frequency goes up and your lead time goes down, you made the right move.

5. Iterate

Your workflow is not a religion. It is a process. If it’s not working, change it. If your team grows from 5 to 50 people, you might need to add more structure. If your product shifts from a mobile app to a web platform, you might need to simplify. Evolve as you grow.

WrapUP: Which One Should You Pick?

So, we have covered a lot of ground. Which workflow should you use?

If I had to give you a straight answer, I would say this: Aspire to Trunk-Based Development.

The benefits of speed, reduced merge conflicts, and continuous integration are too good to ignore. However, you might not be ready for it yet. If you don’t have automated tests or a strong CI/CD pipeline, jumping straight to Trunk-Based Development is like trying to drive a Formula 1 car without a license—you’re going to crash.

• Start with GitHub Flow if you are a standard web team. It’s a great balance of structure and speed.
• Use Git Flow only if you absolutely have to—typically if you are shipping physical software, mobile apps with strict version support, or working in a highly regulated environment.

The most important advice I can give you is to optimize for the speed of feedback. The faster you can get code from a developer’s machine to a testing environment (and eventually production), the faster you can learn and improve. Usually, this means choosing simpler workflows, not more complex ones.

Pick the workflow that fits your team right now, build the guard rails (tests and automation) to make it safe, and don’t be afraid to level up when you’re ready.

References

1. “A successful Git branching model” – Vincent Driessen’s original blog post on Git Flow.
2. “State of DevOps Report” – DORA metrics and research on high-performing teams.
3. “GitHub Flow” – The official guide to the workflow on GitHub’s website.

FAQs