too many branches

[MIJOTHY]

and they've got bad names.

Flow should be:
-> pull from working master
-> checkout to a new branch, with a name descriptive of the feature you're adding (e.g. 'ajaxtests')
-> do some work
-> add, commit at regular checkpoints
-> once done with the feature (or need remote access to the code), pull, merge, and push to the remote branch (e.g. 'ajaxtests')
-> make a pull req from remote branch (e.g. 'ajaxtests') to remote working master if desired
-> once it has been reviewed and merged by someone else, the merger deletes that remote branch.
Rinse and repeat

[MIJOTHY]

Why was this closed?

[joshpit]

I thought it was just advice rather than something we can actually do. Our git flow is improvong each day. We pretty much follow the steps you laid out now. In response to having too many branches, we have the minimum required. There are 5 team members (robotjosh joined after josh got suspended for being a robot) so we have 5 branches. We have one more branch called gh-pages since we can cannot run gh-pages off the master. We also kept the master which totals 7. As soon as my account is reinstated we can get rid of robotjosh.

In response to the branch names, we have just named them our names. How can we improve the names?