Which Git branching strategy works best for a small team?

Short answer: most small teams do well with a simple trunk-based style: one main branch that is always deployable, short-lived feature branches and pull requests. Heavier models only pay off with scheduled releases and multiple supported versions.

Option 1: trunk-based with short-lived branches

• main is always releasable.
• Create a branch per task, keep it small and merge within a day or two.
• Use pull requests with CI checks and a review.
• Hide unfinished work behind feature flags instead of long branches.
• Deploy from main, tag releases.

Option 2: Git flow

• Long-lived develop and main branches, plus release and hotfix branches.
• Suits software with versioned releases and several supported versions at once.
• Costs more merging effort and ceremony.

Option 3: GitHub flow

Essentially option 1: branch from main, open a pull request, merge, deploy.

What matters more than the model

• Small, frequent merges. Long-lived branches cause painful conflicts.
• Automated tests in CI so main stays healthy.
• Protected main: no direct pushes, required checks.
• Clear naming: feature/short-description, fix/short-description.
• Squash or rebase conventions agreed by the team.

Example flow

git switch main && git pull
git switch -c fix/invoice-rounding
# commit changes
git push -u origin fix/invoice-rounding
# open a pull request, review, merge, delete the branch

Pitfalls

• Branches that live for weeks.
• A develop branch nobody trusts.
• Hotfixes applied to production but never merged back.

Choose the lightest model that matches how you release, write it down in one page and revisit it if releases change.