I’m trying to figure out the most effective way to structure my repository so users can always access a working version of my code. Currently I’m using two main branches - my main branch stays clean for production releases while I do all my active development work on a separate development branch. When I finish testing new features and bug fixes, I merge everything from the development branch back into main for the next release. Is this branching strategy something most developers recommend? I want to make sure I’m following good practices for version control and release management. What approaches have worked well for others when maintaining project stability?
yeah, that makes sense! i usually break it down even more with feature branches too. makes testing and fixing stuff a bit easier. def helps keep the main branch stable when things go south!
Your two-branch approach works great, especially for independent releases. I’ve learned to always tag releases on main - makes rollbacks way easier when production breaks. For critical bugs, I create hotfix branches straight from main, then merge back to both main and dev to keep things synced. The biggest thing is being strict about what counts as a ‘complete’ feature before merging to dev. Half-finished stuff sitting in the dev branch just creates headaches during integration testing.
Your approach is solid and matches what most teams do. I’ve used something similar for years, but you might want to check out Git Flow if things get more complex later. The main-development setup works great for smaller teams since there’s less coordination hassle. Here’s what I learned the hard way - set your merge rules upfront. We made everything pass automated tests before hitting main, and it saved us from several production disasters. Stay disciplined about what gets merged and when. Also, document your branching strategy. Makes onboarding new people way easier.