The question is pretty self-explanatory. I’ve had some experience with git-flow, and not much more true experience with plain git before that. (I was using it more as a backup-provider.) I’m confused as to what consensus is, given that I can safely assume that there are a large number of git users who miss ‘the good old days’ of formal, centralized version control, and just want a piece of it back (cf. rant article below)
Related articles:
- The seminal
- an anti-git-flow rant
“spirit of git” in the question title is, whatever it means to you. For me, I remember that it’s a DVCS, not a CVS. git flow seems like it’s imposing an organized branching model where one might not need to be there at all, where it would be essential in a centralized system such as SVN.
2
There is no consensus, and that is the spirit of git. Git very intentionally does not impose any sort of structure. In that way, it is really more of a version control framework than a complete system. People use git as a base to build whichever kind of structure works best for them. For some teams that’s a format-patch workflow, for some it’s github style, for some it’s git flow, and for others it’s something completely unique.
In other words, use git flow if it works for your organization, otherwise don’t feel like you’re the only one not at the party or something.
2