My personal experience, which I feel like may be a good starting point, is:
- feature branches are necessary, if everyone commits to master that's definitely chaos.
- a develop and a master/main branch make sense sometimes, but can be a bit of a burden without a solid release cycle(?)
- getting people to make an issue before fixing something and then making a branch is extra friction, but should pay off in the long(er) run
- weekly meetings, like a stand-up, can usually be scheduled so most people show up - that helps keep track if someone's stuck
I havent found a way to make people do chores, like reviews, consistently enough. I'm also lacking ideas of how to get your founder/team leader/whatever to stick to the rules. In my experience, the person which full repo access may just abuse that to commit directly to master "because it was easier/important/etc".
- feature branches are necessary, if everyone commits to master that's definitely chaos.
- a develop and a master/main branch make sense sometimes, but can be a bit of a burden without a solid release cycle(?)
- getting people to make an issue before fixing something and then making a branch is extra friction, but should pay off in the long(er) run
- weekly meetings, like a stand-up, can usually be scheduled so most people show up - that helps keep track if someone's stuck
I havent found a way to make people do chores, like reviews, consistently enough. I'm also lacking ideas of how to get your founder/team leader/whatever to stick to the rules. In my experience, the person which full repo access may just abuse that to commit directly to master "because it was easier/important/etc".
Really curious what HN thinks :)