Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

8
  • This is one of my concerns. The fact that your release branch (on the uat environment) should match your master branch after you close the release is just the theory and can't be guaranteed - which is why I feel that closing the release (merging it into master) and then deploying master to uat and then production once signed off by the client seems safer to me - but i'd like to follow a best practice - but I can't seem to find a best practice Commented Mar 31, 2020 at 14:56
  • it's a flaw in the git flow model unfortunately. I would suggest forgoing the release branch completely. merging dev into master for UAT. You run the risk of having to fix the currently deployed version before signoff, but you can always branch from an earlier commit on master if required. Commented Mar 31, 2020 at 15:04
  • In theory release before merging is the same as master after the merge. But in practice this might not be the case. I'm struggling to think of an example where a release branch before merging to master and master after merging the release branch are different. Do you have an example of this? Commented Mar 31, 2020 at 21:01
  • sure, just check something to master without merging to the other branches Commented Mar 31, 2020 at 22:49
  • @Ewan I suppose, but that's no longer gitflow. That's such a huge deviation from gitflow that I'm not sure how it's applicable to a question about gitflow. Commented Mar 31, 2020 at 23:19