Missing bugfix branches about gitflow

[nvie]

Well, that's rather arbitrary. I don't think you should hang on to the term "feature" too tight. A rule of thumb would be that if you need more than one commit for a change, you should do it on a feature branch, otherwise commit it directly on develop.

Adding another flavour of branches would only make sense if it would be an actual other flavour. What you are referring to are simply feature branches (in that they branch off from develop and merge back into develop).

I would advise to name them "fix-" manually, for example:
feature/fix-memory-crash

[AMorgaut]

@thiswildorchid I guess it is just convention. Bug fixes and features follow exactly the same process in git-flow. So for all intents and purposes feature/fix-... will work just fine...

I tend to disagree
According to your reference (https://jeffkreeftmeijer.com/git-flow/), release branches are meant to only accept bugfixes, not features. Git tooling could control this rule if a bugfix related naming convention is defined (and is respected)
and one without "feature" in the name would be less confusing in that context

[mkurkov]

Thanks for clarifications.

[fatuhoku]

👍

[subtubes-io]

I came here with the same question. I understand the reasoning but the naming convention doesn't lend itself too well. I think adding "fix" might be something to consider? Just my 2 cents.

[fatuhoku]

@thiswildorchid I guess it is just convention. Bug fixes and features follow exactly the same process in git-flow. So for all intents and purposes feature/fix-... will work just fine...

[alejandroclaro]

My two cents.

The name is confusing, but the purpose make sense. There is no value or difference in having another prefix. The rules for such branches will be the same as feature branches.

Feature, or topic, branches are about planned changes. The nature of the change is not important.