[csmiller]

https://trunkbaseddevelopment.com/

[bluefirebrand]

Okay now I'm wondering what the alternative is, because this just looks like "development" to me.

[beanaroo]

Gitflow, and its various flavours, has been a popular alternative. Though it seems trunk-based is considered the preferred standard due to emphasis on achieving a stable main branch, simplified pipelines and faster cycle times. This requires a bit more maturity to get right if I'm not mistaken as you need good automation, test coverage and code review practices.

[dilyevsky]

Alternative is having long lived “devel” branches or even dedicated release branches. Used to be quite popular especially with waterfall style processes

[Manuel_D]

https://trunkbaseddevelopment.com/trunk1c.png

So trunk driven development means no PRs, until you decide you want to use PRs?

[Izkata]

Trunk-based development, as I've seen it explained in the past, isn't what that site describes. The way I understood it is, no branches at all, everything committed straight to trunk, and extensive use of feature flags to keep incomplete features hidden.

Short-lived branches like that site's describing just sounds like a team that's adopted git pretty well, but not formalized usage into gitflow or similar...

[iampims]

It’s trunk driven because there aren’t some long lived branches like ‘dev’ and ‘staging’ or ‘release-xx’

Feature flags can be used to gate features until they are ready, but all code is committed to trunk and is deployed to prod mostly continuously.

[dgb23]

What’s the benefit of having release branches without commits if you can just use tags? I guess the difference is mostly cosmetic?

[the_gipsy]

It's optional, I guess because so many companies or teams would immediately discard TBD if this wasn't addressed.