Best beginner-friendly branching workflow for small teams?

[TechGuru999]

I’m part of a 3-person project. We want a simple branching workflow that prevents conflicts but isn’t heavy. What workflows have you used (feature-branch, git-flow, trunk-based, etc.) and why did they work for small teams? Please include concrete rules (when to branch, merge, naming, review).

[mohammad3a1eh]

We use a lightweight trunk-based workflow with short-lived feature branches. It gives structure without the overhead of git-flow.

Branching Rules

• Main branch = always stable, deployable
• One branch per task

Naming:

feature/<task-name>
fix/<issue-name>
chore/<task>

Examples:

feature/login-form
fix/payment-bug
chore/update-ci

Workflow

• Pull latest main
• Create feature branch from main
• Commit small and often
• Open PR when feature is ready
• At least 1 peer review required
• Squash merge into main
• Delete branch

Merge Strategy

• Squash merge (keeps history clean)
• No direct push to main

PR Rules

• Keep PRs small (< ~200 lines if possible)
• Include:

What changed
Why changed
Screenshots for UI changes

• All checks (tests/CI) pass before merge

Additional Safeguards on GitHub

Enable:

1. Branch protection on main
2. Require 1 review
3. Require up-to-date with main
4. Auto-delete merged branches

Why this works for small teams

1. Minimal process overhead
2. Keeps code stable
3. Avoids long-running branches & big conflicts
4. Promotes fast feedback

Example PR and Issue Views on GitHub

PR view – shows a sample pull request

Issue view – shows a sample issue

[tmilost]

Step	Rule/Recommendation	Example/Naming	Why It Works for Small Teams
Single-Branch Focus	Use only main and feature branches, no dev or release branches	main, feature/improve-readme	Maximum simplicity; easy to teach
Feature Branching	Branch off main for every new feature or fix	feature/user-profile, bug/footer	Clear purpose; easy to track changes
Atomic Commits	Commit only one logical change per commit	Add login button separately from adding logout	Simplifies code review and history
PR (Pull Request)	Always create a pull request for merging, even for tiny changes	PR for “add About section”	Promotes review habit; healthy discipline
Peer Review	Require one teammate’s approval before merge	Teammate checks, leaves comment	Fast feedback loop, prevents solo bad merges
Merge and Cleanup	After merge, auto-delete feature branch	GitHub setting: auto-delete on	Keeps repo tidy; avoids clutter
Naming Convention	Use prefixes, keep names short and task-related	feature/navbar, bug/crash-app	Quick identification of tasks by branch
Documentation	Document workflow rules in README	README section: “Branching Rules”	Every member understands; easy onboarding

Workflow Example:

1. Pull the latest main
2. Create feature branch (e.g., feature/update-header)
3. Make atomic commits
4. Push and open a PR
5. Teammate reviews PR, approves
6. Merge (squash or regular)
7. Branch is auto-deleted

Quick Tips:

• No direct commits to main.
• Keep feature branches short-lived.
• Use concise branch names.
• Prefer “squash” merge for tidy history.

[ogcae]

For a 3-person team, I’ve found that a simple feature-branch workflow hits the sweet spot between preventing conflicts and staying lightweight. Here’s a practical setup:

Branches

• main (or master): always stable and deployable.
• feature/<short-description>: for any new work, bugfix, or task. Short-lived and focused.

Branching Rules

1. Create a branch for each task:

   git checkout -b feature/add-login
   

2. Keep branches small—each branch should implement one logical change.

Commits

• Commit frequently with meaningful messages.
• Optionally follow conventional commits, e.g., feat: add login form, fix: typo in README.

Merging

1. Push your feature branch.
2. Open a Pull Request (PR) against main.
3. Require at least one review from a teammate.
4. Merge only after approval and passing any tests.

Naming Conventions

• Features: feature/<short-description>
• Bugfixes: bugfix/<short-description>
• Hotfixes: hotfix/<short-description>

Conflict Prevention

• Frequently sync with main to reduce merge conflicts:

  git fetch origin
  git merge origin/main
  

• Resolve conflicts incrementally rather than letting them pile up.

Why this works for small teams

• No heavy rules: avoids the overhead of Git-Flow.
• Stable main: always ready to deploy or share.
• Focused branches: reduce merge conflicts and make reviews fast.
• Scalable: if the team grows, you can add CI checks or a staging branch.

💡 Optional tweaks:

• Skip feature branches for tiny fixes; commit directly to main if trivial.
• Trunk-based style works if the team coordinates closely and merges frequently.

---