Trunk-Based Development vs Git Flow: When and Why to Use EachA battle of philosophies—deciding between short-lived branches or structured workflows

Introduction: The Philosophy Behind Git Branching

Whether you're a seasoned developer or just starting out, branching strategies can often seem more like an academic headache than a practical solution. The two dominant paradigms look simple on paper but require deep consideration to implement effectively: Trunk-Based Development and Git Flow.

Both approaches solve different problems and present wildly different philosophies toward version control. Trunk-Based Development advocates for agility with quick, short-lived branches contributing directly to a single trunk (main branch). Git Flow, on the other hand, introduces structure and order, suited for projects with defined release cycles.

But when it comes to real-world application, neither is free of trade-offs. Teams that select the wrong branching strategy pay the cost in terms of productivity, release delays, and endless (and often hostile) merge conflicts. This blog explores when and why each of these models makes sense for your workflow and how to choose based on your project's needs.

Trunk-Based Development: The Essence of Continuous Delivery

Trunk-Based Development (TBD) is lean, direct, and fast. With TBD, developers commit directly to the trunk—the main branch—multiple times a day. Branches, if even used, are short-lived and merged back within hours.

Why Teams Love Trunk-Based Development

The primary advantage of TBD is speed and collaboration. Since branches are short-lived and merged frequently, it eliminates the risk of massive merge conflicts. Developers work in smaller iterations, which makes continuous testing and deployment highly efficient. In fact, TBD encourages the use of CI/CD pipelines—not as a "nice-to-have" but as a requirement to make it work.

Example Workflow

# Pull the latest main branch
git checkout main
git pull origin main

# Create a short-lived branch
git checkout -b feature/add-new-login

# Add some quick changes and commit
git add .
git commit -m "Implement login functionality"

# Reintegrate the feature
git checkout main
git merge feature/add-new-login
git push origin main

In this model, your trunk (or main branch) is always deployable.

The Downsides of TBD

Let's be honest: TBD isn't for every team. While it promotes agility, it demands discipline. Without CI/CD automation or rigorous commitment to clean, production-ready code, this idyllic model collapses. Newer or less experienced teams might find TBD intimidating due to the lack of structured buffers.

Git Flow: Best Friend or Bottleneck?

Git Flow emerged from the early days of version control and is designed for projects with lengthy, predictable release cycles. Here, branching is structured. A central develop branch contains upcoming features, while main remains a pristine, production-only branch. Supporting branches include:

• feature/: Temporary branches for new features.
• release/: Stabilization branches pre-release.
• hotfix/: Emergency fixes to production.

The Case for Git Flow

For projects with slow-moving, feature-rich iterations (think enterprise or regulated environments), Git Flow is often the go-to. Teams that place a premium on process and order find Git Flow's compartments extremely helpful.

Example Workflow

# Create a feature branch
git checkout develop
git checkout -b feature/add-new-dashboard

# Finish the feature and merge into develop
git add .
git commit -m "Add new dashboard feature"
git checkout develop
git merge feature/add-new-dashboard

# Create a release branch
git checkout -b release/v1.2
git push origin release/v1.2

When the release branch stabilizes, it gets merged into both main and develop.

Where Git Flow Falters

Structure comes at a price. The overhead required to maintain so many branches often slows down rapid iterations. Frequent merges between develop, release, and main introduce merge-conflict risks, while parallel work on features may create branch divergence.

In an agile world, Git Flow's design can feel rigid and counterproductive for rapid deployments. Here's the harsh truth: Git Flow works until it doesn't. Teams adopting this model often overestimate their ability to manage branching complexity efficiently.

Key Differences: Trunk or Flow?

Asking the Right Questions

• How often do you want to deploy?

  • Trunk-Based if daily or hourly.
  • Git Flow if weekly or monthly.

• What level of process does your team need?

  • TBD for small, agile teams comfortable with quick iterations.
  • Git Flow for teams where processes trump speed.

• Do you have strong CI/CD systems?

  • TBD thrives on automation; Git Flow can work without it.

A Hybrid Approach: When the Real Answer is "It Depends"

You might be disappointed to hear that neither model is a one-size-fits-all solution—and that's okay. Many teams find success by hybridizing these models.

For example:

• Use a lightweight GitHub Flow for feature branches in Trunk-Based Development.
• Introduce hotfix branches like Git Flow, while pushing smaller or unmonitored features directly to a deployable trunk.

Continuous introspection and adaptation are critical. Sometimes broad rethinking is required when your team scales or priorities shift.

Conclusion: Choose What Works, Not What's Trendy

The real mistake isn't picking Trunk-Based Development or Git Flow—it's failing to think critically about your team's needs. Dogmatically adopting a trendy branching strategy without aligning it to your release cadence, CI/CD pipeline, and team size is a recipe for disaster.

Trunk-Based Development shines when speed, automation, and teamwork are priorities. Git Flow, by contrast, provides rigorous control well-suited for cautious, bureaucratic teams. Neither is perfect—but both are powerful when applied in the right scenarios.

Take the time to experiment, improve, and iterate on your branching process. Whether you commit to simplicity or structure, own your choice and adapt as your project evolves. After all, your team's productivity depends on it.