I've been arguing for using Git Flow. Reading the post I have to say the stand our lead takes against Git Flow and in favour of very cosy CI is perhaos steonger than I realised.
He argues for pushing about as often as possible. With our small team thats very do-able, every push gets tested and linted by the 'blue' or 'green'. You're supossed to only push passing code which you easily can by running the tests and lint locally. So instead of all the pain points mentioned in the post you write passing code, pull and rebase on other passing code, and then push. Little code review, no worries about hasty reverting, few / early conflicts keeping us from trilling each other up or writing incompatible features.
The reason I argue for Git Flow? Our tree is an absolute mess. Most often a single chain, of often linearly scrambled features. In other words removing one feature would be hard and require a bunch of legwork, not a couple Git commands.
If anyone strongly feels there's a better way for a small team than lightning fast CI let me know!
He argues for pushing about as often as possible. With our small team thats very do-able, every push gets tested and linted by the 'blue' or 'green'. You're supossed to only push passing code which you easily can by running the tests and lint locally. So instead of all the pain points mentioned in the post you write passing code, pull and rebase on other passing code, and then push. Little code review, no worries about hasty reverting, few / early conflicts keeping us from trilling each other up or writing incompatible features.
The reason I argue for Git Flow? Our tree is an absolute mess. Most often a single chain, of often linearly scrambled features. In other words removing one feature would be hard and require a bunch of legwork, not a couple Git commands.
If anyone strongly feels there's a better way for a small team than lightning fast CI let me know!