title: Git best practice one or multiple branches
body: <p>I'm currently working in a remote team with multiple developers. We're all from different locations. Sometimes or most of the time we work on different things, sometimes on the same things.</p>
  
  <p>If for instance I'm working on a feature <code>A</code> (on branchA) and my colleague is working on a feature <code>B</code> (on branchB), what would be the best practice to commit our work.</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>Merge branchA to master, build/execute tests/deploy</li>
  <li>Merge branchB to master, build/execute tests/deploy</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>or </p>
  
  <p>Branch off branch name <code>develop</code> of <code>master</code> and then merge <code>branchA</code> and <code>branchB</code> onto it, then build/execute tests. </p>
  
  <p>If all goes well do the step 1 and 2 and deploy the master to the prod.</p>
  
  <p>I mean using a <code>develop</code> it's a way of getting features from multiple branches into a single release for QA.</p>
  
  <p>But using develop branch, you get one more extra branch to maintain and you basically merge the same branches to master again.</p>
  
  <p>What are the approaches that work for your company/similar situations? Are there best practices regarding these situations?</p>