which git workflow is the best?

It depends on the project requirements and internal culture, and whether your a rebaser or not...

One of the most popular workflows is git flow.

---

Git flow is a successful workflow...

Things I would change with git flow

• Branch and code review bug fixes (like the feature branches).
• Rebase all bug/feature branches onto develop (rather than merging develop into the branch).
• Use 'master' instead of 'develop' - If you need a emergency severe bug fix then I would do the following:

What it would look like before:

v1    v2
|     |
o-o-o-o-o-o-o master

You would think you could only add a fix into master.. and deploy ALL the changes. Your wrong...

git checkout v2
git commit -m "Fixes foobar"

looks like (detached HEAD):

v1    v2
|     |
o-o-o-o-o-o-o master
       \
       -o

then git tag v3 looks like:

v1    v2
|     |
o-o-o-o-o-o-o master
       \
       -o v3

then merge v3 into master (dont rewrite history):

git checkout master
git merge v3

v1    v2
|     |
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-m master
       \     /
       -o---- v3

or rebase master onto v3 with (all current open feature branches will need to be rebased onto the NEW master (new commits) and remove the old master commits.

git checkout master
git rebase v3

v1    v2
|     | v3
o-o-o-o |
       \|     
       -o-x-x-x master

---

if you rewrote master (ensure nothing TAGGED is rewritten! just commits in 'master' which isnt in production yet).

tell developers to:

git fetch
git checkout feature-x
git rebase master --onto origin/master

Use the above command to recover from master being rewritten carefully. Please learn exactly what it is doing. Which is... take commits from feature-x and local master.. and apply it on top of origin/master.