Feature and Review branches are a great idea. It just makes it so easy to work in parallel on different things, and to context-switch when you get blocked. Honestly, I can't remember how we used to solve these problems with SVN. If you're in the middle of developing a feature and need to wait for someone to get back to you, the options for switching to a different feature with SVN are pretty limited.

This is interesting. What I'm curious about though, is how does this workflow scale to thirty developers? 100?

I tend to believe with six people or less, you can really work together with any system and it will work fine. Some will obviously require more work than others, but once you get to a larger team, some systems just won't work, AFAIK.

From my experience with working with 50+ developers, organized into teams of 3-8 people: Feature branches are the way to go. We used an adapted version of the git-flow workflow and it does scale pretty nicely.

I like Gitflow alot, how did you guys adapt it? Was anything major required to get it to scale up to 50+?

We experimented with team branches to integrate work of the subteams before merging into develop, but that did not work out very well

Very cool. What do you guys use for issue management?

We used Agilo, and it sucked

We also follow feature development workflow with git:

http://reinh.com/blog/2009/03/02/a-git-workflow-for-agile-te...