Git workflows that teams actually use

Many teams do not need one perfect system. They want something reliable, easy to explain, and quick to adapt. The most effective workflows are practical: they fit the team’s size, the pace of releases, and how much risk is acceptable. The goal is to keep changes small, make reviews fast, and keep the main branch healthy.

Here are patterns you actually see in practice, with a quick note on when they fit.

  • Centralized workflow A single main line with simple pushes or small feature branches. Good for very small teams or maintenance work, where speed matters more than strict history.

  • Feature-branch workflow with pull requests Each feature or fix gets its own branch off main, e.g., feat/login. Open a pull request, run CI, get code review, then merge to main. This pattern scales well as teams grow.

  • GitHub Flow / GitLab Flow Main is always deployable. Short-lived branches and frequent merges keep the product ready to ship. This is common in web apps and services with rapid iteration.

  • GitFlow A more formal pattern: main (production), develop (integration), and separate release/hotfix branches. It suits longer release cycles and larger teams with strict QA steps.

  • Trunk-based development Very short-lived or even no long-lived feature branches. Frequent commits to trunk/main, often paired with feature flags. Great for teams with fast feedback and strong test automation.

Choosing a pattern depends on a few realities. If you have frequent releases and low risk, GitHub Flow or trunk-based development works well. If you ship on a schedule with complex QA, GitFlow can help organize work and releases. For tiny teams, centralized workflow may be enough.

Practical tips to make any pattern work:

  • Name branches clearly: feat/, fix/, chore/ plus issue numbers where possible.
  • Protect the main branch: require passing tests, code reviews, and approved merges.
  • Decide a merge strategy: merge commits preserve history, squash keeps a clean main, rebase creates linear history.
  • Use automation: CI to run tests, PR templates, and status checks improve consistency.
  • Prune stale branches and document rules so onboarding is smooth.

Example scenario: a five-person team follows GitHub Flow. A developer creates a branch feat/search, pushes to origin, opens a PR, CI runs, a teammate reviews, and after approval the feature merges into main and deploys to staging. A quick hotfix goes to main and is backfilled to develop if using a mixed pattern.

Key Takeaways

  • Real teams use a small set of practical patterns, not a single perfect system.
  • Choose a pattern based on release cadence, risk, and team size.
  • Automate checks, enforce conventions, and keep branch naming, reviews, and merges clear.