The case for GitFlow in 2026
GitFlow isn't modern. It isn't fast. But one developer argues it still works for solo projects—when used properly.
The model, introduced by Vincent Driessen in 2010, uses multiple long-lived branches (main, develop, feature, release, hotfix) to enforce structure. For solo developers, that structure removes shortcuts. No direct pushes to main. No skipped reviews. No "I'll clean this up later."
"GitFlow makes discipline the default instead of a personal choice," the developer writes. "When you work alone, shortcuts are tempting."
When the friction is worth it
The approach makes sense in specific scenarios: versioned releases where v1.2.3 means something, real staging phases that aren't just "production with a flag", and parallel workstreams where features continue on develop while releases stabilize.
What GitFlow doesn't suit: continuous deployment with multiple daily releases, teams that can't keep develop stable, or projects without proper staging environments. In those cases, trunk-based development with feature flags typically wins.
The implementation details
The setup is strict. Main stays always releasable—no exceptions. Develop serves as the integration branch, protected even for solo work. Feature branches last three to five days maximum before deletion. Release branches only exist when actual stabilization is needed.
Hotfix branches remain rare and follow a specific pattern: branch from main, fix the issue, merge to both main and develop. The back-merge to develop is where teams typically drift.
What matters here
This surfaces an ongoing debate in enterprise development. GitFlow persists for roughly 20-30% of structured projects despite industry momentum toward trunk-based development. The friction GitFlow creates—mandatory PRs, branch protection, required status checks—can enforce accountability in distributed teams or compliance-heavy environments.
The catch: if you deploy ten times daily, GitFlow will slow you down. If staging is theater rather than a real gate, the ceremony adds nothing. The model only works when the branches reflect actual release reality.
For CTOs evaluating branching strategies, the question isn't whether GitFlow is modern. It's whether your release cadence, team structure, and tooling match the assumptions the model makes. When they don't, the friction becomes pure overhead.
Worth noting: GitHub Flow offers a simpler middle ground between GitFlow's structure and trunk-based development's velocity. The real decision is whether you need parallel workstreams and formal stabilization phases—or whether those concepts are artifacts of an older deployment model your organization has already moved past.