Software Development Workflow


It is highly recommended that you perform all of your work from inside of a distributed version control system. On this page, we will use git as an example.

In a typical collaborative software development project (e.g. newk), there is often a central repository hosted somewhere. For arguments sake let’s say this is on github and controlled by the newk organization. This repository will thus be available as – or newk/newk for short.

Different users will then have forks (copies) of this repository:

So the question arises, “What is the best way for us to exchange code?”

By convention there is a hierarchy of branches. Branches that are more important and more stable are touched less often while those which are used for day-to-day development are touched more frequently. Branches often fall into one of the following categories, in order of decreasing importance:

  1. master: This is the most stable branch and represents code that definitely works. This branch should only be pushed to at release time.

  2. staging or develop: This branch is the merge branch for all developers. It represents the place where reconciliation between various updates happen. As such, it is sort of a communal playground. Everyone is there and things probably work but may not quite be ready for prime time. At release time, it is this branch which becomes merged with the master branch.

  3. topical: These branches exist so that you may hack at will on implementing a feature or fix a bug. There may be many of these simultaneously. These branches are merged into develop. Such branches are the wild west and nothing should be expected to work here.

All of the types of branches described above are present on all forks.

Reconciliation Workflow

Suppose that me and you are working on some hot feature on a special awesome topical branch. There are two basic strategies for managing our branches.


  1. We fetch from staging regularly, merge awesome against staging, push to origin (e.g. me/newk or you/newk) and then pull request into newk/newk.

  2. Don’t worry about staging updates on the awesome branch. Once awesome branch features are ready to be moved into staging they will be merged against staging.

In general, the short answer is do (a). The medium answer is that you should do what works best for you in that moment.

The long answer is that experience in life (and software development) has shown that it is best to “Fail early, fail often”. This is because the sooner that you fail, the sooner you detect the mistake, and the less impact that mistake has in the code base overall. Also failure is how you learn. Furthermore, such failures are how you clarify exactly what a piece of code should be doing.

By frequently merging the master, staging, and relevant topical branched from upstream (newk/newk) to your repository (you/newk) or from master to stanging and staging to topical (awesome), you are ensuring that the code you are working on continues to function. If something breaks, you can take care of it then in that moment while everything is still fresh in your mind. By waiting to merge or rebase until a large feature is complete, you run the risk of true major catastrophic breakage. These are difficult to recover from since it may have been months or years since the last merge. It is better to trade this for daily smaller dosages of ho-hum failures.

Now as to the exact frequency that you should be updating with, this is largely a matter of personal preference and how active upstream development is. I am commit happy personally. Daily is my strategy, 3 days is reasonable, and weekly often used in corporate settings. Longer than that and you fail to reap any benefits from strategy (a) and are de facto using strategy (b).