I define a branch as a parallel line of configurations or work product versions. First, I copy a chosen configuration or version. Then, I make that copy the root of the branch. This lets me work in parallel with the main line. For example, I start a release branch while the production branch receives only bug fixes. Next, I continue feature work on the release branch. Meanwhile, I keep production stable. Later, I merge the branches again, so that fixes and features converge.
I use branches in configuration management. In addition, I apply branching in requirements engineering. Thus, I can have multiple valid requirement versions at the same time. For instance, I create a requirements branch from the last baseline. Then, I change and version it. Consequently, the same requirement can exist in two branches in parallel. Therefore, I treat each branch as having its own valid requirement version.
I create a requirements branch by selecting a valid requirements configuration. Then, I copy it to start the branch. After that, I edit requirements in it. Next, I summarize the changes in a new requirements configuration. Finally, I merge the branch back into the main line before the next release. However, sometimes I keep branches separate on purpose. In that case, I call the results variants rather than the same requirement. Therefore, I assign different requirement IDs to variants. This ensures unique identification.
I caution that branches increase complexity. For example, branches make it harder to identify requirements uniquely. In addition, branches add another dimension to versioning and refinement. Moreover, branches create redundant requirement information that I must maintain in parallel. Consequently, I need careful change control and traceability. Otherwise, uncontrolled branching can cause chaos instead of benefit.
I recommend using branches sparingly and deliberately. For example, I maintain one parallel development branch for bug fixes and small changes. Also, I keep the number of active requirement branches low. Furthermore, I prepare separate development and test environments for each active branch. Otherwise, parallel development may delay releases. In particular, software errors in one branch can affect commissioning of later releases.
I follow clear rules when I merge branches. First, I evaluate the impact of changes. Then, I review and approve changes according to change management. Next, I trace related requirements and artifacts. Finally, I merge only after I resolve conflicts. Thus, I avoid reintroducing already fixed errors into production.
I note practical trade-offs. Branches let me develop in parallel. However, they demand more discipline. Therefore, I balance the need for parallel work with the cost of maintenance. Since branches affect the whole life cycle, I plan for them early. Moreover, I tie branch creation to milestones and baselines. As a result, I keep releases predictable and manageable.
I draw on configuration and requirements management practices. For example, I set baselines before branching. Also, I use requirements IDs and trace links to maintain clarity. Ultimately, I use branches to enable parallel development. At the same time, I manage them carefully to limit complexity and risk.