I track all my development using Git, and I always follow this strategy.
The strategy is inspired by A successful Git branching model.
I have 2 permanent branches: master and develop.
Those are the rules I follow in my daily routine:
When I take on a new issue, or decide to incorporate a feature, there are 2 main roads:
The feature is a quick one, or subsequent commits I’ll make won’t break the code (or at least I hope so): I can commit on develop, or do a quick feature branch, and then merge it to develop.
The feature will take more than one commit to finish, maybe it will take days of commits before the feature is finished and it gets stable again: I do a feature branch, then merge to develop.
If something on our production server requires immediate action, like a bugfix I need to get solved ASAP, I do a short hotfix branch, fix the thing, test the branch locally and on a test machine, then merge it to master and develop.
If I need a quick feature/edit to be pushed on the production server, the develop branch has some unstable code in it, and I’d like that feature/edit ASAP, I can skip the develop branch, do a quick feature branch and merge it to both master and develop, as long as the feature/edit is fast and trivial. If it proves to be something more complicated down the road, it’d be better to wait and stabilise the code on the develop branch.
The develop branch will always be in a state of flux, that’s why it should be put on a ‘freeze’ when preparing a release. The code is tested and every workflow is checked to verify code quality, and it’s prepared for a merge into master.
Every time develop or another hotfix branch is merged into master, I tag it with a version number, so it’s easy to move back to a previous state if something goes wrong.