Search Results

If they insist on a full-custom branch support strategy just charge them accordingly, to properly cover all your extra costs for offering such full-custom support - it only makes business sense. … Make sure you don't fall into the trap of doing full branch merges from/to any of the release branches (both standard and custom), all changes to them should be either individually developed or cherry-picked …

The releases would simply be tagged versions of the master branch. … No massive branch merges, no risk of surprises, everything should be just business as usual - all kinks should have been already ironed out. …

Since you're at peace with using feature branches, it means you're also at peace with potentially complicated branch merges and the risks they bring into your master branch: breakages, delays, etc. … (which will diverge), context switching may not be insignificant. issues uncovered either on the release branch or on the master branch but also affecting the release branch(es) may have to be separately …

The simplest/cleanest branch strategy is IMHO the one used in continuous deployment: a single/main integration branch which is also your release branch. From What is Your Branching Model? … Practically you can eliminate branch merges from your development. …

How would this work for you: the develop branch dissapears, as you wished, absorbed into master the master branch is your trunk, this is where development happens with no speed restrictions (it's never … ) rebase or sync a production release branch pull a releaseX branch from master immediately, following that naming strategy stop commits from going into develop, they'll be soon going straight to master …