How do you adapt your branching strategy to different types of projects and environments in CD?

Honestly, I cannot fathom the delusion of some engineers that attribute mythical properties to the development in branches (an approach only minimally valid on paper, that fails miserably in practice), while remaining surprisingly oblivious as to the fact that holding your code in a branch usually leads to even more code being added on top, which in turn means slower feedback cycles and iterations, nightmarish code reviews, painful merges (especially at the end of the sprint, let the Hunger Games begin!), blast radiuses of biblical proportions, expensive troubleshooting when things don't go our way... Whatever that might be that the development in branches may foster, is everything but CONTINUOUS.

Branching models in Continuous Deployment (CD) play a crucial role in organizing codebase and workflow. Trunk-based development emphasizes working on a single branch (trunk/main) and making frequent commits. Feature branches and toggles isolate unfinished work, merging to the trunk after completion. Gitflow involves main branches (master/develop) and supporting branches for features, releases, and hotfixes. GitHub flow utilizes feature branches branching off from master, with pull requests for merging back after completion. CI/CD tools automate testing and deployment post-merge for all models.

Aside from Open Source projects and highly regulated environment, working with a branching model does not make sense, especially if you want to achieve the C of CI. Short lived branches, TBD, and a disciplined approach with feature flags/toggles are key to prevent knowing too late down the line that something is wrong

While many prioritize the excitement surrounding Automated Deployment Tools (which are undoubtedly crucial), it's essential to recognize that branching strategies serve as the cornerstone of every Continuous Delivery workflow. An inadequate definition of branching models can result in premature code deployment to production, bypassing thorough testing and security vetting, or cause delays in critical deployments due to the necessity of validating newly added code. Personally, I am a staunch advocate of Gitflow because, in my view, it offers the most comprehensive approach to Continuous Delivery without unnecessarily complicating the branching model.

Different project types have unique requirements and constraints for branching strategies. Monolithic projects benefit from trunk-based development for faster integration and delivery but may face merge conflicts and coordination overhead. Microservices projects can leverage GitHub flow for independent service development but may encounter challenges like service discovery and cross-service testing. Hybrid projects, combining monolithic and microservices elements, may find Gitflow advantageous for structured development but may face issues such as branch synchronization and feature compatibility.

"Microservices projects, which have multiple codebases and multiple deployment units that communicate with each other, may gain from GitHub flow as it allows for independent and parallel development and delivery of each service." I have no idea why you'd introduce even more complexity into a microservices architecture by using "Github flow". Whilst never having worked with microservices, the whole concept of it for most companies seems like a maintainability nightmare and an explosion of complexity. To add in Git flow on top of that... I don't honestly see how this could work.

In a microservices architecture, each service is developed and deployed independently. The trunk-based approach allows teams to work on different services simultaneously, merging changes into the main branch quickly, and deploying services independently without affecting other services. How To: 1. Use a Single Main Branch: Use a single main branch (e.g., "main" or "trunk") for each microservice. 2. Create Short-Lived Feature Branches 3. Merge Frequently: Merge feature branches into the main branch frequently, ideally within a day. 4. Use Automated Testing and Deployment By adopting the trunk-based approach, you can streamline your microservices development, improve collaboration, and accelerate time-to-market.

Different types of environments have specific expectations and risks related to branching strategies. Development environments prioritize speed and flexibility, making any branching model suitable as long as best practices for code quality, testing, and collaboration are followed. Staging environments require high stability and quality but have low expectations for speed and flexibility, making trunk-based development or Gitflow ideal for thorough testing before production. Production environments demand the highest stability and quality, necessitating a branching model like GitHub flow or Gitflow to minimize risks and enable quick recovery from potential issues.

"Consequently, it is recommended to use a branching model that ensures code is well-tested before production, such as trunk-based development or Gitflow." This is bordering on misinformation. Trunk-based development and Gitflow are oceans apart. Neither branching model "ensures code is well tested". They are ways of organising and distributing information within your codebase. One is efficient (TBD) and another encourages waste and context switching (Gitflow).

Trunk-Based Development is ideal for development environments where speed and collaboration are crucial. Trunk-Based Development (TBD) can be used for production environments, but it requires a high level of maturity, discipline, and automation and if mixed with feature toggles release management can also be done. While Release Branching is better suited for production environments where stability and predictability are paramount. Feature Branching can be used in development environments for larger features or complex changes, but requires careful management to avoid merge conflicts and delays also.

Given what others have contributed, that "environment types" refer to environments in the sense of development/testing/staging/production, I don't see how branching strategy has anything to do with environment types at all. Do you have separate code repositories per environment? If "environment types" refer to different criticality of the software, as in internal lunch scheduling system vs missile guidance system, there may be a fruitful topic for discussion but I'd still bet on TBD and in the latter case _very_ thorough testing.

Consider the Development Environment- 1.Monolithic Applications: Use feature branches to isolate development work and ensure stability in the main branch. 2.Microservices: Each microservice can have its own repository and branching strategy, allowing for independent development and deployment.

You should also consider that some of the contributions to this kind of collaborative articles are the results of a guy (yes, mostly guys) who have mastered the invaluable skill of copying and pasting to and from an LLM product. The result is mostly coherent text but absolutely devoid of experience or insight. The goal is of course a "Top Voice profile badge."

When considering branching strategies for different types of projects and environments, also think about: - Project size and complexity - Team size and distribution - Release frequency and cadence - Regulatory and compliance requirements - Technology stack and tooling - Development pace and velocity - Testing and validation requirements - Deployment and rollback processes For example: - Small projects: Trunk-Based Development (TBD) or Feature Branching (FB) - Large projects: Release Branching (RB) or Git Flow - Agile teams: TBD or FB - Regulatory environments: RB or Git Flow Remember, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Choose a branching strategy that aligns with your project's unique needs and constraints.

1.Align with Deployment Frequency- Frequent Deployments: Trunk-Based Development is ideal for environments where code is deployed multiple times a day. Scheduled Releases: Git Flow or Release Flow can be more suitable for projects with scheduled release cycles. 2.Incorporate CI/CD Practices- Automated Testing: Ensure that all branches are integrated with automated testing to catch issues early. Continuous Integration: Regularly merge feature branches into the main branch to avoid integration issues. 3.Document and Communicate- Clear Guidelines: Document your branching strategy and ensure all team members understand and follow it. Regular Updates: Review and update your branching strategy as the project evolves and new challenges arise.