git with master branch only?

[dennis-fedco]

I've been following http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model, which recommends master, release, and develop branches, in addition to hotfix and feature branches.

Since I work with another developer only, we did not use release branches as staging area but used everything else.

 

Well, to ease on merges, the new idea is as such:  use only master branch, and get rid of all others.  Feature and hotfix branches can branch off of master and be merged back into master.  So in short, only have one main branch called master, and remove the develop branch.

 

Since we have {local, develop, production} servers, this will not impact actual development and testing.

Removing 'develop' branch will however remove that "extra" intermediate step between the master branch and feature branches

 

Do you see any problems with this?  Or it's "to each his own, however you want to use git, use it" type thing?

[trq]

It is a "to each his own" type thing and no, I don't see any issue with leaving out the develop branch. I have worked at places and on projects using master & develop, master, staging and develop and master alone, it really is up to you. With fewer devs (I have found), it probably makes more sense not to worry about develop.

 

Make sure to always use feature branches however.

[KevinM1]

Yeah, I work with one other developer as well. We create/destroy feature branches as needed, but really only have a master branch. It works fine.