Your team is growing, deployments are getting more complex, and the simple "commit to main" approach that worked with three developers is now causing problems with ten. Someone mentions Gitflow in a meeting. Another developer advocates for trunk-based development. A third suggests sticking with feature branches but doing them "better." Everyone has opinions, but nobody has clarity.
The choice between branching workflows isn't just a technical decision—it's a reflection of how your team works, how often you deploy, and what your risk tolerance looks like. There's no universal best practice, but there is a best practice for your specific situation.
We're going to compare three major branching strategies: Feature Branch Workflow, Gitflow, and Trunk-Based Development. We'll examine what problems each solves, what new problems each creates, and most importantly, when each makes sense for real teams working on real projects.
Feature Branch Workflow: The Balanced Approach
Feature Branch Workflow is what most teams stumble into naturally. The pattern is straightforward: create a branch for each feature or bug fix, develop in isolation, then merge back to main when ready. It's simple enough for new teams to adopt but powerful enough to support sophisticated workflows.
In this model, your main branch represents production or near-production code. Every change starts as a branch, goes through review via pull request, and merges when approved. Developers work independently without stepping on each other's toes, and the main branch stays relatively stable.
Here's what a typical workflow looks like:
# Start new feature git checkout -b feature/user-notifications # Develop and commit git add . git commit -m "Add email notification system" # Keep up to date with main git fetch origin git rebase origin/main # Push and create PR git push origin feature/user-notifications
The beauty of Feature Branch Workflow is its flexibility. It doesn't prescribe how long branches should live, how many you can have, or what your merging strategy should be. This adaptability lets teams customize the workflow to match their needs.
When Feature Branch Workflow Shines
Feature Branch Workflow works best for teams that need structure without ceremony. If you're building a web application with weekly or monthly releases, making regular improvements alongside new features, this model provides exactly enough organization without getting in your way.
Small to medium teams—roughly 5 to 20 developers—find this sweet spot particularly appealing. There's enough structure that people don't collide constantly, but not so much process that every change requires navigating a complex branching hierarchy.
This workflow also excels when features vary significantly in size and complexity. Some changes take hours, others take weeks. Feature Branch Workflow accommodates both without forcing artificial constraints. You can merge a quick bug fix within a day while a major feature branch lives for two weeks, and the workflow handles both naturally.
Teams that deploy frequently but not continuously benefit from the clear merge points that feature branches provide. Each merged PR represents a deployable unit of work. Your deployment process can be as simple as "deploy main" whenever you're ready.
The Limitations You'll Encounter
Feature Branch Workflow's flexibility creates challenges when branches proliferate. Without clear conventions about branch lifetime, you'll eventually discover dozens of stale branches cluttering your repository. Developers forget to delete branches after merging, or they create branches for experiments that never go anywhere.
Long-lived feature branches become problematic. A branch that lives for three weeks while the team merges dozens of other changes will accumulate substantial conflicts. By the time you're ready to merge, integrating with main requires resolving complex, intertwined conflicts. The longer the branch lives, the worse this gets.
The workflow also lacks opinions about releases. How do you handle release candidates? What happens when you need to support multiple versions in production? Feature Branch Workflow doesn't answer these questions, so teams end up inventing ad-hoc solutions that may not work well together.
Integration testing happens late. Each feature develops in isolation, and you only discover integration issues when merging to main. If two features interact in unexpected ways, you might not find out until they're both supposedly "done."
Gitflow: Structure for Complex Release Management
Gitflow emerged from a need for more ceremony. When Vincent Driessen published his branching model in 2010, he was solving problems that Feature Branch Workflow handles poorly: managing multiple production versions, coordinating complex releases, and maintaining stable release candidates while development continues.
Gitflow introduces multiple long-lived branches with specific purposes. The
main branch represents production, but unlike Feature Branch Workflow, you
rarely merge directly to it. Instead, you have a develop branch where feature
branches merge. When you're ready to release, you create a release branch from
develop, stabilize it, then merge to both main and back to develop.
The model looks like this:
main ---*-----------*---------*---- (production releases)
/ \ / \ / \
release / o-------o \ / \
/ / \ \ / \
develop ---*----*-----*-----*----*----*----- (active development)
/ \ / / / /
feature o------o o-----o o----o
Hotfixes add another branch type. When production breaks, you branch from
main, fix the issue, then merge to both main and develop. This ensures the
fix reaches both production and ongoing development without disrupting release
preparation.
When Gitflow Makes Sense
Gitflow shines when you need to support multiple versions in production simultaneously. If you're shipping software to enterprise customers who deploy different versions—some on v2.3, others on v2.5, and a few still on v2.1—you need Gitflow's structure to maintain separate release branches and backport fixes.
Teams shipping packaged software, mobile apps to app stores, or systems with
long QA cycles benefit from the release branch concept. You can stabilize a
release candidate on its own branch while development continues on develop. QA
tests the release branch, finds bugs, and those fixes go into the release
branch. Meanwhile, developers keep adding features to develop for the next
release.
Organizations with separate development and release engineering teams appreciate
the clear boundaries Gitflow provides. The development team works on develop
and feature branches. The release team manages release and main branches.
The separation of concerns matches the organizational structure.
Regulated industries often require this level of process. When you need to demonstrate exactly which changes went into which release, maintain long-term support branches, and provide audit trails for every change, Gitflow's formality becomes a feature rather than a burden.
The Overhead Gitflow Introduces
The complexity of Gitflow is also its primary weakness. New team members need
significant onboarding to understand when to branch from develop versus
main, what the difference between a release branch and a hotfix branch is, and
why changes need to merge to multiple branches.
This complexity leads to mistakes. Developers accidentally branch from main
instead of develop. Hotfixes get merged to main but not develop, causing
the bug to reappear in the next release. Release branches accumulate fixes that
should have gone into develop, creating divergence that's painful to
reconcile.
The overhead multiplies for teams that deploy frequently. If you're deploying
multiple times per day, the ceremony of creating release branches, stabilizing
them, merging to main, and merging back to develop adds friction that slows
you down. Each deployment becomes an event requiring coordination and ceremony.
Gitflow assumes your team has time for stabilization periods. The release branch
concept only makes sense if you're going to spend days or weeks testing and
fixing before release. If you deploy directly from develop without a
stabilization period, you're just adding branches without gaining the benefits
Gitflow provides.
The model also creates more merge conflicts. Changes flow through multiple
branches, and each merge point is an opportunity for conflicts. A feature might
merge cleanly to develop but conflict when the release branch merges back, or
a hotfix might conflict when merging from main to develop.
Trunk-Based Development: Minimalism and Speed
Trunk-Based Development (TBD) takes a radically different approach. Instead of
isolating work in branches, everyone commits to a single branch—the trunk, often
called main or master. Feature branches either don't exist or live for less
than a day. The goal is to integrate continuously, catching conflicts
immediately rather than discovering them later.
This doesn't mean committing half-finished features to production. Instead, TBD relies heavily on feature flags. You merge code frequently, but new functionality stays hidden behind flags until it's ready. This lets you integrate code constantly while controlling what users see independently of what's deployed.
A typical TBD workflow looks like:
# Short-lived branch (hours, not days) git checkout -b feature/add-notification-badge # Small, focused change git add notification-badge.js git commit -m "Add notification badge component (behind feature flag)" # Merge quickly (same day) git checkout main git merge feature/add-notification-badge git push origin main # Feature flag controls visibility if (featureFlags.notificationBadge) { showBadge() }
High-performing teams using TBD might commit to trunk dozens of times per day. Each commit is small and tested. The codebase is always in a releasable state, or close enough that a quick fix can make it releasable.
When Trunk-Based Development Excels
TBD is the workflow of choice for teams that deploy continuously. If you're pushing to production multiple times per day, the overhead of managing feature branches becomes pure friction. You need your changes integrated and tested immediately, not sitting in a branch waiting for review.
Small, experienced teams get the most from TBD. When you have five exceptional developers who trust each other's judgment and maintain high testing standards, the safety that branches provide becomes less necessary. The team's discipline and communication replace process.
Organizations with strong CI/CD pipelines and comprehensive automated testing can safely adopt TBD because the safety net of tests catches integration issues immediately. When your test suite runs in minutes and catches 95% of bugs, you can afford to integrate continuously. The fast feedback loop replaces the isolation that branches provide.
TBD also works well for monorepos where many teams contribute to a single repository. The forced integration prevents teams from diverging on separate branches. Everyone sees everyone else's changes immediately, which encourages good communication and prevents nasty surprises during integration.
The workflow encourages small, incremental changes. When you're committing to trunk multiple times per day, you can't build large features in isolation. You have to break work into small pieces that can integrate safely. This constraint often leads to better design and more thoughtful decomposition.
The Challenges of Trunk-Based Development
TBD requires exceptional discipline. Without branch isolation, a bad commit affects everyone immediately. One developer who skips running tests before committing can block the entire team. The workflow assumes everyone maintains high standards all the time.
Feature flags introduce their own complexity. You need infrastructure to manage flags, logic in your code to check them, and processes to clean up flags when features launch. Flag logic scatters through your codebase, and abandoned flags become technical debt. Some teams end up with hundreds of flags, creating a maze that's hard to navigate.
Code review becomes more challenging. Traditional pull requests provide a natural boundary for review—here's a complete feature, please review it. With TBD, changes are smaller and more frequent. You need different review processes, often relying on pair programming or post-commit review. Teams struggle to maintain code quality without the forcing function of pre-merge review.
TBD makes it harder to experiment with major changes. If you're considering a significant refactor or testing a new approach, doing it on trunk with feature flags is awkward. You're either committing incomplete code that colleagues see, or you're maintaining complex flag logic to hide the experiment.
The workflow also assumes your team is consistently available. When someone commits a breaking change, you need people around to fix it quickly. Distributed teams across time zones find this challenging. A commit at the end of a European developer's day might break things for the US team starting their morning.
Comparing the Workflows: A Practical Guide
Let's examine these workflows across dimensions that matter for real teams.
Team Size and Structure
Feature Branch Workflow scales from solo developers to medium teams of 20-30. It provides structure without requiring extensive coordination. Teams can work somewhat independently, syncing through pull requests.
Gitflow works best for larger teams or organizations with separate dev and release teams. The structure helps coordinate many developers, but requires more communication overhead. Beyond 50 developers, the ceremony becomes necessary; below 10, it's often overkill.
Trunk-Based Development favors smaller, highly skilled teams. Beyond 10-15 developers, maintaining the discipline TBD requires becomes challenging. The workflow assumes high trust and strong communication, which gets harder as team size grows.
Release Cadence
If you release weekly or monthly, Feature Branch Workflow provides a natural rhythm. Features merge to main, and you deploy main when ready. Simple and effective.
If you release on fixed schedules with QA cycles, stabilization periods, and multiple supported versions, Gitflow's structure matches your needs. The release branch becomes a workspace for stabilization.
If you deploy multiple times per day, Trunk-Based Development removes branching friction. Every commit is potentially deployable, and feature flags let you decouple deployment from feature activation.
Risk Tolerance
Feature Branch Workflow offers moderate risk management. Branches isolate changes, but integration happens eventually. PRs provide review gates before changes reach main.
Gitflow is low-risk for releases. Multiple review points, stabilization periods, and release branches ensure thoroughly tested code reaches production. However, this safety comes with speed tradeoffs.
Trunk-Based Development accepts more risk in exchange for speed. Bugs can reach production faster, but they also get fixed faster. The workflow assumes you're better off fixing forward than preventing all issues.
Code Review Practices
Feature Branch Workflow naturally supports asynchronous PR review. Developers submit complete features for review, reviewers provide feedback when available, and iteration happens on the branch before merging.
Gitflow adds review points at multiple stages. Features review before merging to develop, release branches review before merging to main, and hotfixes review before emergency merging.
Trunk-Based Development works best with synchronous review practices like pair programming or quick pre-commit reviews. Post-commit review is also common—commits land on trunk, then teammates review them afterward.
Learning Curve
Feature Branch Workflow has a gentle learning curve. Most developers understand "create a branch, make changes, merge via PR" intuitively. The basic Git commands needed are few.
Gitflow has a steep learning curve. New developers struggle with multiple long-lived branches, understanding when to use each type, and managing the merging complexity. Teams often adopt tools like git-flow extension to help, but that's another thing to learn.
Trunk-Based Development seems simple—just commit to main—but the discipline it requires makes it deceptively hard. Feature flags, testing requirements, and the need for small commits create cognitive overhead that takes time to master.
Hybrid Approaches: Taking What Works
Many teams don't adopt these workflows pure. Instead, they mix elements to match their specific needs. These hybrid approaches often work better than dogmatic adherence to one model.
Feature Branches with Trunk-Based Principles
Some teams use short-lived feature branches (less than a day) combined with frequent integration. You get the isolation and review benefits of branches with the integration benefits of trunk-based development.
# Morning: Create branch git checkout -b feature/small-change # Mid-day: Complete change git commit -am "Add feature (behind flag)" # Afternoon: Merge via PR # (Quick review, then merge to main)
This hybrid works well for teams transitioning from Feature Branch Workflow toward more continuous integration. You maintain the review process while shrinking branch lifetimes.
Gitflow with Continuous Deployment
Some teams use Gitflow's structure but automate the ceremony. Every merge to develop triggers deployment to a staging environment. Release branches automatically deploy to a pre-production environment. Tools handle the branch management, reducing manual overhead.
This keeps Gitflow's organizational benefits—clear release candidates, support for multiple versions—while removing much of the manual branch wrangling that makes pure Gitflow painful.
Release Branches without Full Gitflow
Many teams adopt just the release branch concept from Gitflow without the full model. They use Feature Branch Workflow day-to-day, but when preparing a release, they create a release branch for stabilization. After release, they delete the branch and continue feature work on main.
main ---*-----*-----*---------*-----*----
\ / \ /
release o-------o o-o
(v2.0) (v2.1)
This provides Gitflow's stabilization benefits without the complexity of maintaining develop and main simultaneously.
Making the Choice for Your Team
The right workflow depends on honest answers to specific questions about your team and product.
Start with your deployment frequency. If you're deploying multiple times per day, seriously consider Trunk-Based Development or very short-lived feature branches. If you deploy weekly or monthly, Feature Branch Workflow likely fits. If you have long QA cycles and support multiple versions, Gitflow makes sense.
Consider your team's Git proficiency. If you're working with developers new to Git, start with Feature Branch Workflow. It's intuitive and forgiving. Gitflow requires solid Git skills. Trunk-Based Development requires not just Git mastery but also discipline around testing and small commits.
Evaluate your testing infrastructure. Trunk-Based Development demands excellent automated testing. Without it, you're flying blind. Feature Branch Workflow can survive with moderate testing. Gitflow works even with manual testing, though it's not ideal.
Think about your coordination overhead. Small teams can coordinate informally, making trunk-based approaches viable. Large teams need more structure, making Gitflow's ceremony worthwhile. Medium teams find Feature Branch Workflow's balance most practical.
Finally, consider your risk profile. In heavily regulated industries, financial services, healthcare, or anywhere bugs have serious consequences, Gitflow's multiple review gates provide valuable safety. For consumer web products where you can fix forward quickly, Trunk-Based Development's speed might matter more than perfect prevention.
Evolving Your Workflow Over Time
Your workflow should evolve as your team and product mature. What works for a five-person startup building an MVP won't work for a 50-person team supporting enterprise customers.
Most teams start with Feature Branch Workflow because it's approachable. As you grow, you might add elements from Gitflow—perhaps release branches for stabilization, or a develop branch to protect main. Or you might move toward Trunk-Based Development by shrinking branch lifetimes and investing in feature flags.
The key is being intentional about changes. Don't adopt Gitflow because a blog post said so. Don't chase Trunk-Based Development because Google does it. Choose workflows that solve actual problems your team faces.
Pay attention to pain points. If integration is painful, you need more frequent merging—either shorter branches or trunk-based development. If releases are chaotic, you need more structure—release branches or Gitflow. If the process feels bureaucratic, you need less structure—simpler workflow with fewer branch types.
At Pull Panda, we see teams across this entire spectrum. What matters isn't which workflow you choose, but how effectively you execute it. Any of these approaches works when your team understands it, maintains discipline, and adapts it to your specific needs. The workflow should serve your team, not the other way around.
For more tactical advice on working with feature branches, check out our complete guide to mastering feature branches. And if you want to dive deeper into the mechanics of merging and rebasing within any of these workflows, our article on handling merge conflicts and rebase strategies provides the practical details you need.