The Hidden Costs of Git-Flow: Why Separate Merges Can Hurt You

Following our previous discussion on how git-flow-avh improves upon the original git-flow model, let’s dive a little deeper into the limitations of the classic approach.

We’ve already touched on the benefits of git-flow-avh, particularly its streamlined merging strategy. Today, we’ll focus on the pitfalls of the original git-flow model, mainly in how it addresses separate merges into main and develop.

If you are a git-flow adopter, you are already well aware that this branching workflow requires merging release branches into both main (for production) and develop (for ongoing development).

While this seemed logical at the time, it introduces several downsides that modern development teams can’t accept.

Let’s take a closer look at the main issues at stake.

1. History Fragmentation

One of the most immediate drawbacks is the fragmentation of your Git history, which makes it difficult to:

• determine when bugs were introduced.
• understand how the project has progressed.

Why? Because with the classic git-flow approach, instead of a clean, linear history, you end up with parallel paths that diverge and converge. This makes it harder to understand the project’s evolution at a glance.

The commit graph becomes a tangled web, making it difficult to trace the origins of specific changes. When the commit graph resembles a plate of spaghetti, visualizing the flow of changes becomes a nightmare.

Imagine trying to trace a bug fix through a complex web of branches; you find yourself switching between main and develop, trying to piece together the sequence of events. This significantly slows down debugging… and we all know how some issues can be quite time-sensitive, especially when security vulnerabilities are discovered!

The git bisect command, which is usually quite useful for identifying bugs, becomes more difficult to use due to a convoluted history. This command relies on a linear history to efficiently narrow down the commit that introduced a bug. A fragmented history can make this process significantly more challenging and time-consuming.

Determining which changes were part of a specific release can also become a headache. Trying to reconstruct the history of a release from a fragmented commit graph is like trying to solve a puzzle with missing pieces. This makes it difficult to understand the context of changes and can hinder post-release analysis.

Finally, a fragmented history makes it difficult to demonstrate compliance and can even lead to regulatory issues. In regulated environments, auditing requires a clear and traceable history of changes.

2. Merge Conflicts

Separate merges also amplify the risk of merge conflicts.

Modifying the same files in both main and develop inevitably leads to more conflicts. When the same code is touched in two branches, the chances of conflicting changes are high. This is especially true in large teams where multiple developers are working on different features simultaneously.

As you may have guessed already, this also means that you often have to resolve similar conflicts twice, once for each branch, which is a massive time sink and can lead to frustration. Imagine spending hours resolving a complex conflict in the main branch, only to have to repeat the process for develop 😰

Due to the sheer volume of potential conflicts, the final stages of a release become more complex and time-consuming. The pressure to release on time can be intense, and dealing with numerous merge conflicts adds significant stress to the process, potentially delaying releases and impacting team morale.

3. Synchronization Issues

Keeping main and develop in sync can be a challenging balancing act. Here is a short list of the most common issues you may face.

• Inconsistencies: If merges aren’t performed meticulously, inconsistencies can creep in, leading to discrepancies between the two branches. A missed merge or a conflict resolved differently can lead to subtle differences between main and develop. This can cause unexpected behavior in production or introduce bugs that are difficult to track down.
• Partial Merges: Changes might exist in main but not in develop, or vice versa, causing confusion and potential production issues. For example, a hotfix applied to main might not be merged into develop, leading to the bug reappearing in the next release. This can erode trust in the release process and create a sense of uncertainty.
• Verification Overhead: You will need extra verification steps to ensure both branches contain the same release code, adding overhead to your workflow. Manual verification or complex automated checks are required to ensure that main and develop are truly synchronized. This extra verification adds time to the release process and can slow down the overall development cycle.
• Human Error: The more complex the merge process, the higher the chance of human error. When developers are rushing to resolve conflicts, they might overlook subtle differences or make mistakes. This can lead to bugs that are difficult to reproduce and fix.

Final Words

In this article, we have addressed several issues with git-flow: from increased branch overhead and cognitive load to slower release cycles and automation complexity, there are several reasons to consider alternative modern Git workflows.

These limitations may seem minor individually, but they accumulate over time, resulting in a more complex, error-prone, and time-consuming workflow.

This is where git-flow-avh shines. By adopting a streamlined merging strategy, it addresses these limitations head-on, offering a more robust and efficient workflow.

We hope this deep dive into the hidden costs of the original git-flow helps you make informed decisions about your Git workflow.

Stay tuned for more insights and tips on optimizing your version control practices! ✌️