DEV Community

Hongster
Hongster

Posted on

Git Flow vs GitHub Flow : Understand in 3 Minutes

#abotwrotethis

Problem Statement

Git Flow and GitHub Flow are two Git branching strategies that help teams collaborate on code without stepping on each other's toes—you pick one when your repo starts feeling chaotic during feature development or releases.

You encounter this daily when juggling multiple features, hotfixes, or deploys: one dev merges a breaking change, another can't test locally, and suddenly everyone's yelling in Slack. Choosing the right flow keeps your main branch stable and ships code faster.

Core Explanation

Both strategies organize Git branches to isolate work, but Git Flow is structured for planned releases, while GitHub Flow prioritizes simplicity and constant integration.

Git Flow Breakdown

  • master: Always production-ready code.
  • develop: Integration branch for ongoing work.
  • feature/ branches: Off develop for new features (merge back to develop).
  • release/ branches: Off develop for final tweaks before tagging a version (merge to master and develop).
  • hotfix/ branches: Off master for urgent production fixes (merge to master and develop).

Think of Git Flow like a car manufacturing line: features build in parallel workshops (develop), then polish in the release bay before shipping.

GitHub Flow Breakdown

  • main (or master): Always deployable.
  • Create feature branches off main for any work.
  • Open a pull request (PR), get reviews, merge to main via squash or rebase.
  • Delete the feature branch after merge.
  • Deploy from main immediately.

It's like a food truck: cook a quick dish (feature branch), serve it hot (merge and deploy), clean up, repeat.

Git Flow shines in rigid release cycles; GitHub Flow in rapid iterations—pick based on your deploy frequency.

Practical Context

Use Git Flow for large teams with scheduled releases (e.g., quarterly versions) needing strict separation of stable code from experiments. Skip it for tiny teams or solo devs—too many branches create overhead.

Adopt GitHub Flow for continuous deployment setups where you ship daily or on every PR merge. Avoid it if your app can't handle "always merging to main" without automated tests gating deploys.

Real-world cases:

  • E-commerce app: Git Flow for holiday release prep (features → release → tag v1.2.0).
  • Web SaaS startup: GitHub Flow for weekly feature drops via PRs.
  • Mobile game: Git Flow to batch hotfixes without disrupting live servers.

You should care because the wrong flow wastes hours on merge conflicts or stalled PRs—audit your team's size, release cadence, and CI/CD setup to match.

Quick Example

Scenario: Team building a login feature while fixing a prod bug.

Git Flow:

master ── v1.0
       │
    hotfix/login-bug ── merge ── v1.0.1 ── merge ── develop
                           │
                       feature/new-ui ── merge ── develop ── release/1.1 ── merge ── master (v1.1)
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Hotfix bypasses develop for speed; feature waits for release prep.

GitHub Flow:

main ── PR: fix/login-bug ── merge ── deploy
      │
   PR: feature/new-ui ── merge ── deploy
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Everything merges directly to main after review—simpler, but relies on tests.

This shows Git Flow's isolation vs. GitHub Flow's speed.

Key Takeaway

Match your flow to deploy rhythm: Git Flow for versioned releases, GitHub Flow for continuous deploys—start simple with GitHub Flow unless you need release branches.

For more: Vincent Driessen's original Git Flow post.

Top comments (0)