Add latest changes from gitlab-org/gitlab@master

22 files changed, 336 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/doc/topics/autodevops/quick_start_guide.md b/doc/topics/autodevops/quick_start_guide.md
index d9bdd73221f..2d3576f6022 100644
--- a/doc/topics/autodevops/quick_start_guide.md
+++ b/doc/topics/autodevops/quick_start_guide.md
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ under **Settings > CI/CD > Environment variables**.
 
 ### Working with branches
 
-Following the [GitLab flow](../../workflow/gitlab_flow.md#working-with-feature-branches),
+Following the [GitLab flow](../gitlab_flow.md#working-with-feature-branches),
 let's create a feature branch that will add some content to the application.
 
 Under your repository, navigate to the following file: `app/views/welcome/index.html.erb`.
diff --git a/doc/topics/git/index.md b/doc/topics/git/index.md
index d6e1f83b876..7a8b11d2b07 100644
--- a/doc/topics/git/index.md
+++ b/doc/topics/git/index.md
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ The following resources will help you get started with Git:
 - Commits:
   - [Revert a commit](../../user/project/merge_requests/revert_changes.md#reverting-a-commit)
   - [Cherry-picking a commit](../../user/project/merge_requests/cherry_pick_changes.md#cherry-picking-a-commit)
-  - [Squashing commits](../../workflow/gitlab_flow.md#squashing-commits-with-rebase)
+  - [Squashing commits](../gitlab_flow.md#squashing-commits-with-rebase)
 
 ### Concepts
 
diff --git a/doc/topics/git/migrate_to_git_lfs/index.md b/doc/topics/git/migrate_to_git_lfs/index.md
index 0c30b45c552..eec1c3c10c1 100644
--- a/doc/topics/git/migrate_to_git_lfs/index.md
+++ b/doc/topics/git/migrate_to_git_lfs/index.md
@@ -163,9 +163,9 @@ but commented out to help encourage others to add to it in the future. -->
 ## References
 
 - [Getting Started with Git LFS](https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2017/01/30/getting-started-with-git-lfs-tutorial/)
-- [Migrate from Git Annex to Git LFS](../../../workflow/lfs/migrate_from_git_annex_to_git_lfs.md)
-- [GitLab's Git LFS user documentation](../../../workflow/lfs/manage_large_binaries_with_git_lfs.md)
-- [GitLab's Git LFS administrator documentation](../../../workflow/lfs/lfs_administration.md)
+- [Migrate from Git Annex to Git LFS](../../../administration/lfs/migrate_from_git_annex_to_git_lfs.md)
+- [GitLab's Git LFS user documentation](../../../administration/lfs/manage_large_binaries_with_git_lfs.md)
+- [GitLab's Git LFS administrator documentation](../../../administration/lfs/lfs_administration.md)
 - Alternative method to [migrate an existing repo to Git LFS](https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/wiki/Tutorial#migrating-existing-repository-data-to-lfs)
 
 <!--
diff --git a/doc/topics/gitlab_flow.md b/doc/topics/gitlab_flow.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..0fab4de8454
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/gitlab_flow.md
@@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
+---
+disqus_identifier: 'https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/gitlab_flow.html'
+---
+
+# Introduction to GitLab Flow
+
+![GitLab Flow](img/gitlab_flow.png)
+
+Git allows a wide variety of branching strategies and workflows.
+Because of this, many organizations end up with workflows that are too complicated, not clearly defined, or not integrated with issue tracking systems.
+Therefore, we propose GitLab flow as a clearly defined set of best practices.
+It combines [feature-driven development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature-driven_development) and [feature branches](https://martinfowler.com/bliki/FeatureBranch.html) with issue tracking.
+
+Organizations coming to Git from other version control systems frequently find it hard to develop a productive workflow.
+This article describes GitLab flow, which integrates the Git workflow with an issue tracking system.
+It offers a simple, transparent, and effective way to work with Git.
+
+![Four stages (working copy, index, local repo, remote repo) and three steps between them](img/gitlab_flow_four_stages.png)
+
+When converting to Git, you have to get used to the fact that it takes three steps to share a commit with colleagues.
+Most version control systems have only one step: committing from the working copy to a shared server.
+In Git, you add files from the working copy to the staging area. After that, you commit them to your local repo.
+The third step is pushing to a shared remote repository.
+After getting used to these three steps, the next challenge is the branching model.
+
+![Multiple long-running branches and merging in all directions](img/gitlab_flow_messy_flow.png)
+
+Since many organizations new to Git have no conventions for how to work with it, their repositories can quickly become messy.
+The biggest problem is that many long-running branches emerge that all contain part of the changes.
+People have a hard time figuring out which branch has the latest code, or which branch to deploy to production.
+Frequently, the reaction to this problem is to adopt a standardized pattern such as [Git flow](https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/) and [GitHub flow](http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html).
+We think there is still room for improvement. In this document, we describe a set of practices we call GitLab flow.
+
+For a video introduction of how this works in GitLab, see [GitLab Flow](https://youtu.be/InKNIvky2KE).
+
+## Git flow and its problems
+
+![Git Flow timeline by Vincent Driessen, used with permission](img/gitlab_flow_gitdashflow.png)
+
+Git flow was one of the first proposals to use Git branches, and it has received a lot of attention.
+It suggests a `master` branch and a separate `develop` branch, as well as supporting branches for features, releases, and hotfixes.
+The development happens on the `develop` branch, moves to a release branch, and is finally merged into the `master` branch.
+
+Git flow is a well-defined standard, but its complexity introduces two problems.
+The first problem is that developers must use the `develop` branch and not `master`. `master` is reserved for code that is released to production.
+It is a convention to call your default branch `master` and to mostly branch from and merge to this.
+Since most tools automatically use the `master` branch as the default, it is annoying to have to switch to another branch.
+
+The second problem of Git flow is the complexity introduced by the hotfix and release branches.
+These branches can be a good idea for some organizations but are overkill for the vast majority of them.
+Nowadays, most organizations practice continuous delivery, which means that your default branch can be deployed.
+Continuous delivery removes the need for hotfix and release branches, including all the ceremony they introduce.
+An example of this ceremony is the merging back of release branches.
+Though specialized tools do exist to solve this, they require documentation and add complexity.
+Frequently, developers make mistakes such as merging changes only into `master` and not into the `develop` branch.
+The reason for these errors is that Git flow is too complicated for most use cases.
+For example, many projects do releases but don't need to do hotfixes.
+
+## GitHub flow as a simpler alternative
+
+![Master branch with feature branches merged in](img/gitlab_flow_github_flow.png)
+
+In reaction to Git flow, GitHub created a simpler alternative.
+[GitHub flow](https://guides.github.com/introduction/flow/index.html) has only feature branches and a `master` branch.
+This flow is clean and straightforward, and many organizations have adopted it with great success.
+Atlassian recommends [a similar strategy](https://www.atlassian.com/blog/git/simple-git-workflow-is-simple), although they rebase feature branches.
+Merging everything into the `master` branch and frequently deploying means you minimize the amount of unreleased code, which is in line with lean and continuous delivery best practices.
+However, this flow still leaves a lot of questions unanswered regarding deployments, environments, releases, and integrations with issues.
+With GitLab flow, we offer additional guidance for these questions.
+
+## Production branch with GitLab flow
+
+![Master branch and production branch with an arrow that indicates a deployment](img/gitlab_flow_production_branch.png)
+
+GitHub flow assumes you can deploy to production every time you merge a feature branch.
+While this is possible in some cases, such as SaaS applications, there are many cases where this is not possible.
+One case is where you don't control the timing of a release, for example, an iOS application that is released when it passes App Store validation.
+Another case is when you have deployment windows &mdash; for example, workdays from 10&nbsp;AM to 4&nbsp;PM when the operations team is at full capacity &mdash; but you also merge code at other times.
+In these cases, you can make a production branch that reflects the deployed code.
+You can deploy a new version by merging `master` into the production branch.
+If you need to know what code is in production, you can just checkout the production branch to see.
+The approximate time of deployment is easily visible as the merge commit in the version control system.
+This time is pretty accurate if you automatically deploy your production branch.
+If you need a more exact time, you can have your deployment script create a tag on each deployment.
+This flow prevents the overhead of releasing, tagging, and merging that happens with Git flow.
+
+## Environment branches with GitLab flow
+
+![Multiple branches with the code cascading from one to another](img/gitlab_flow_environment_branches.png)
+
+It might be a good idea to have an environment that is automatically updated to the `master` branch.
+Only, in this case, the name of this environment might differ from the branch name.
+Suppose you have a staging environment, a pre-production environment, and a production environment.
+In this case, deploy the `master` branch to staging.
+To deploy to pre-production, create a merge request from the `master` branch to the pre-production branch.
+Go live by merging the pre-production branch into the production branch.
+This workflow, where commits only flow downstream, ensures that everything is tested in all environments.
+If you need to cherry-pick a commit with a hotfix, it is common to develop it on a feature branch and merge it into `master` with a merge request.
+In this case, do not delete the feature branch yet.
+If `master` passes automatic testing, you then merge the feature branch into the other branches.
+If this is not possible because more manual testing is required, you can send merge requests from the feature branch to the downstream branches.
+
+## Release branches with GitLab flow
+
+![Master and multiple release branches that vary in length with cherry-picks from master](img/gitlab_flow_release_branches.png)
+
+You only need to work with release branches if you need to release software to the outside world.
+In this case, each branch contains a minor version, for example, 2-3-stable, 2-4-stable, etc.
+Create stable branches using `master` as a starting point, and branch as late as possible.
+By doing this, you minimize the length of time during which you have to apply bug fixes to multiple branches.
+After announcing a release branch, only add serious bug fixes to the branch.
+If possible, first merge these bug fixes into `master`, and then cherry-pick them into the release branch.
+If you start by merging into the release branch, you might forget to cherry-pick them into `master`, and then you'd encounter the same bug in subsequent releases.
+Merging into `master` and then cherry-picking into release is called an "upstream first" policy, which is also practiced by [Google](https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/upstream-first) and [Red Hat](https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/a-community-for-using-openstack-with-red-hat-rdo).
+Every time you include a bug fix in a release branch, increase the patch version (to comply with [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/)) by setting a new tag.
+Some projects also have a stable branch that points to the same commit as the latest released branch.
+In this flow, it is not common to have a production branch (or Git flow `master` branch).
+
+## Merge/pull requests with GitLab flow
+
+![Merge request with inline comments](img/gitlab_flow_mr_inline_comments.png)
+
+Merge or pull requests are created in a Git management application. They ask an assigned person to merge two branches.
+Tools such as GitHub and Bitbucket choose the name "pull request" since the first manual action is to pull the feature branch.
+Tools such as GitLab and others choose the name "merge request" since the final action is to merge the feature branch.
+In this article, we'll refer to them as merge requests.
+
+If you work on a feature branch for more than a few hours, it is good to share the intermediate result with the rest of the team.
+To do this, create a merge request without assigning it to anyone.
+Instead, mention people in the description or a comment, for example, "/cc @mark @susan."
+This indicates that the merge request is not ready to be merged yet, but feedback is welcome.
+Your team members can comment on the merge request in general or on specific lines with line comments.
+The merge request serves as a code review tool, and no separate code review tools should be needed.
+If the review reveals shortcomings, anyone can commit and push a fix.
+Usually, the person to do this is the creator of the merge request.
+The diff in the merge request automatically updates when new commits are pushed to the branch.
+
+When you are ready for your feature branch to be merged, assign the merge request to the person who knows most about the codebase you are changing.
+Also, mention any other people from whom you would like feedback.
+After the assigned person feels comfortable with the result, they can merge the branch.
+If the assigned person does not feel comfortable, they can request more changes or close the merge request without merging.
+
+In GitLab, it is common to protect the long-lived branches, e.g., the `master` branch, so that [most developers can't modify them](../user/permissions.md).
+So, if you want to merge into a protected branch, assign your merge request to someone with maintainer permissions.
+
+After you merge a feature branch, you should remove it from the source control software.
+In GitLab, you can do this when merging.
+Removing finished branches ensures that the list of branches shows only work in progress.
+It also ensures that if someone reopens the issue, they can use the same branch name without causing problems.
+
+NOTE: **Note:**
+When you reopen an issue you need to create a new merge request.
+
+![Remove checkbox for branch in merge requests](img/gitlab_flow_remove_checkbox.png)
+
+## Issue tracking with GitLab flow
+
+![Merge request with the branch name "15-require-a-password-to-change-it" and assignee field shown](img/gitlab_flow_merge_request.png)
+
+GitLab flow is a way to make the relation between the code and the issue tracker more transparent.
+
+Any significant change to the code should start with an issue that describes the goal.
+Having a reason for every code change helps to inform the rest of the team and to keep the scope of a feature branch small.
+In GitLab, each change to the codebase starts with an issue in the issue tracking system.
+If there is no issue yet, create the issue, as long as the change will take a significant amount of work, i.e., more than 1 hour.
+In many organizations, raising an issue is part of the development process because they are used in sprint planning.
+The issue title should describe the desired state of the system.
+For example, the issue title "As an administrator, I want to remove users without receiving an error" is better than "Admin can't remove users."
+
+When you are ready to code, create a branch for the issue from the `master` branch.
+This branch is the place for any work related to this change.
+
+NOTE: **Note:**
+The name of a branch might be dictated by organizational standards.
+
+When you are done or want to discuss the code, open a merge request.
+A merge request is an online place to discuss the change and review the code.
+
+If you open the merge request but do not assign it to anyone, it is a "Work In Progress" merge request.
+These are used to discuss the proposed implementation but are not ready for inclusion in the `master` branch yet.
+Start the title of the merge request with `[WIP]` or `WIP:` to prevent it from being merged before it's ready.
+
+When you think the code is ready, assign the merge request to a reviewer.
+The reviewer can merge the changes when they think the code is ready for inclusion in the `master` branch.
+When they press the merge button, GitLab merges the code and creates a merge commit that makes this event easily visible later on.
+Merge requests always create a merge commit, even when the branch could be merged without one.
+This merge strategy is called "no fast-forward" in Git.
+After the merge, delete the feature branch since it is no longer needed.
+In GitLab, this deletion is an option when merging.
+
+Suppose that a branch is merged but a problem occurs and the issue is reopened.
+In this case, it is no problem to reuse the same branch name since the first branch was deleted when it was merged.
+At any time, there is at most one branch for every issue.
+It is possible that one feature branch solves more than one issue.
+
+## Linking and closing issues from merge requests
+
+![Merge request showing the linked issues that will be closed](img/gitlab_flow_close_issue_mr.png)
+
+Link to issues by mentioning them in commit messages or the description of a merge request, for example, "Fixes #16" or "Duck typing is preferred. See #12."
+GitLab then creates links to the mentioned issues and creates comments in the issues linking back to the merge request.
+
+To automatically close linked issues, mention them with the words "fixes" or "closes," for example, "fixes #14" or "closes #67." GitLab closes these issues when the code is merged into the default branch.
+
+If you have an issue that spans across multiple repositories, create an issue for each repository and link all issues to a parent issue.
+
+## Squashing commits with rebase
+
+![Vim screen showing the rebase view](img/gitlab_flow_rebase.png)
+
+With Git, you can use an interactive rebase (`rebase -i`) to squash multiple commits into one or reorder them.
+This functionality is useful if you want to replace a couple of small commits with a single commit, or if you want to make the order more logical.
+
+However, you should never rebase commits you have pushed to a remote server.
+Rebasing creates new commits for all your changes, which can cause confusion because the same change would have multiple identifiers.
+It also causes merge errors for anyone working on the same branch because their history would not match with yours.
+Also, if someone has already reviewed your code, rebasing makes it hard to tell what changed since the last review.
+
+You should also never rebase commits authored by other people.
+Not only does this rewrite history, but it also loses authorship information.
+Rebasing prevents the other authors from being attributed and sharing part of the [`git blame`](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-blame).
+
+If a merge involves many commits, it may seem more difficult to undo.
+You might think to solve this by squashing all the changes into one commit before merging, but as discussed earlier, it is a bad idea to rebase commits that you have already pushed.
+Fortunately, there is an easy way to undo a merge with all its commits.
+The way to do this is by reverting the merge commit.
+Preserving this ability to revert a merge is a good reason to always use the "no fast-forward" (`--no-ff`) strategy when you merge manually.
+
+NOTE: **Note:**
+If you revert a merge commit and then change your mind, revert the revert commit to redo the merge.
+Git does not allow you to merge the code again otherwise.
+
+## Reducing merge commits in feature branches
+
+![List of sequential merge commits](img/gitlab_flow_merge_commits.png)
+
+Having lots of merge commits can make your repository history messy.
+Therefore, you should try to avoid merge commits in feature branches.
+Often, people avoid merge commits by just using rebase to reorder their commits after the commits on the `master` branch.
+Using rebase prevents a merge commit when merging `master` into your feature branch, and it creates a neat linear history.
+However, as discussed in [the section about rebasing](#squashing-commits-with-rebase), you should never rebase commits you have pushed to a remote server.
+This restriction makes it impossible to rebase work in progress that you already shared with your team, which is something we recommend.
+
+Rebasing also creates more work, since every time you rebase, you have to resolve similar conflicts.
+Sometimes you can reuse recorded resolutions (`rerere`), but merging is better since you only have to resolve conflicts once.
+Atlassian has a more thorough explanation of the tradeoffs between merging and rebasing [on their blog](https://www.atlassian.com/blog/git/git-team-workflows-merge-or-rebase).
+
+A good way to prevent creating many merge commits is to not frequently merge `master` into the feature branch.
+There are three reasons to merge in `master`: utilizing new code, resolving merge conflicts, and updating long-running branches.
+
+If you need to utilize some code that was introduced in `master` after you created the feature branch, you can often solve this by just cherry-picking a commit.
+
+If your feature branch has a merge conflict, creating a merge commit is a standard way of solving this.
+
+NOTE: **Note:**
+Sometimes you can use .gitattributes to reduce merge conflicts.
+For example, you can set your changelog file to use the [union merge driver](https://git-scm.com/docs/gitattributes#gitattributes-union) so that multiple new entries don't conflict with each other.
+
+The last reason for creating merge commits is to keep long-running feature branches up-to-date with the latest state of the project.
+The solution here is to keep your feature branches short-lived.
+Most feature branches should take less than one day of work.
+If your feature branches often take more than a day of work, try to split your features into smaller units of work.
+
+If you need to keep a feature branch open for more than a day, there are a few strategies to keep it up-to-date.
+One option is to use continuous integration (CI) to merge in `master` at the start of the day.
+Another option is to only merge in from well-defined points in time, for example, a tagged release.
+You could also use [feature toggles](https://martinfowler.com/bliki/FeatureToggle.html) to hide incomplete features so you can still merge back into `master` every day.
+
+> **Note:** Don't confuse automatic branch testing with continuous integration.
+> Martin Fowler makes this distinction in [his article about feature branches](https://martinfowler.com/bliki/FeatureBranch.html):
+>
+> "I've heard people say they are doing CI because they are running builds, perhaps using a CI server, on every branch with every commit.
+> That's continuous building, and a Good Thing, but there's no *integration*, so it's not CI."
+
+In conclusion, you should try to prevent merge commits, but not eliminate them.
+Your codebase should be clean, but your history should represent what actually happened.
+Developing software happens in small, messy steps, and it is OK to have your history reflect this.
+You can use tools to view the network graphs of commits and understand the messy history that created your code.
+If you rebase code, the history is incorrect, and there is no way for tools to remedy this because they can't deal with changing commit identifiers.
+
+## Commit often and push frequently
+
+Another way to make your development work easier is to commit often.
+Every time you have a working set of tests and code, you should make a commit.
+Splitting up work into individual commits provides context for developers looking at your code later.
+Smaller commits make it clear how a feature was developed, and they make it easy to roll back to a specific good point in time or to revert one code change without reverting several unrelated changes.
+
+Committing often also makes it easy to share your work, which is important so that everyone is aware of what you are working on.
+You should push your feature branch frequently, even when it is not yet ready for review.
+By sharing your work in a feature branch or [a merge request](#mergepull-requests-with-gitlab-flow), you prevent your team members from duplicating work.
+Sharing your work before it's complete also allows for discussion and feedback about the changes, which can help improve the code before it gets to review.
+
+## How to write a good commit message
+
+![Good and bad commit message](img/gitlab_flow_good_commit.png)
+
+A commit message should reflect your intention, not just the contents of the commit.
+It is easy to see the changes in a commit, so the commit message should explain why you made those changes.
+An example of a good commit message is: "Combine templates to reduce duplicate code in the user views."
+The words "change," "improve," "fix," and "refactor" don't add much information to a commit message.
+For example, "Improve XML generation" could be better written as "Properly escape special characters in XML generation."
+For more information about formatting commit messages, please see this excellent [blog post by Tim Pope](https://tbaggery.com/2008/04/19/a-note-about-git-commit-messages.html).
+
+## Testing before merging
+
+![Merge requests showing the test states: red, yellow, and green](img/gitlab_flow_ci_mr.png)
+
+In old workflows, the continuous integration (CI) server commonly ran tests on the `master` branch only.
+Developers had to ensure their code did not break the `master` branch.
+When using GitLab flow, developers create their branches from this `master` branch, so it is essential that it never breaks.
+Therefore, each merge request must be tested before it is accepted.
+CI software like Travis CI and GitLab CI show the build results right in the merge request itself to make this easy.
+
+There is one drawback to testing merge requests: the CI server only tests the feature branch itself, not the merged result.
+Ideally, the server could also test the `master` branch after each change.
+However, retesting on every commit to `master` is computationally expensive and means you are more frequently waiting for test results.
+Since feature branches should be short-lived, testing just the branch is an acceptable risk.
+If new commits in `master` cause merge conflicts with the feature branch, merge `master` back into the branch to make the CI server re-run the tests.
+As said before, if you often have feature branches that last for more than a few days, you should make your issues smaller.
+
+## Working with feature branches
+
+![Shell output showing git pull output](img/gitlab_flow_git_pull.png)
+
+When creating a feature branch, always branch from an up-to-date `master`.
+If you know before you start that your work depends on another branch, you can also branch from there.
+If you need to merge in another branch after starting, explain the reason in the merge commit.
+If you have not pushed your commits to a shared location yet, you can also incorporate changes by rebasing on `master` or another feature branch.
+Do not merge from upstream again if your code can work and merge cleanly without doing so.
+Merging only when needed prevents creating merge commits in your feature branch that later end up littering the `master` history.
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..a6f3c947843
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_ci_mr.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_ci_mr.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..85a609cb814
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_ci_mr.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_close_issue_mr.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_close_issue_mr.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..70de2fb6cee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_close_issue_mr.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_environment_branches.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_environment_branches.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..0aff33c6bb8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_environment_branches.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_four_stages.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_four_stages.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..3ef6a33d2d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_four_stages.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_git_pull.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_git_pull.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..0e56e59471c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_git_pull.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_gitdashflow.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_gitdashflow.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..65900853d84
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_gitdashflow.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_github_flow.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_github_flow.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..21a22becdb6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_github_flow.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_good_commit.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_good_commit.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..ceb0d4b1691
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_good_commit.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_merge_commits.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_merge_commits.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..4a80811c6e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_merge_commits.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_merge_request.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_merge_request.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..010e95983fc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_merge_request.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_messy_flow.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_messy_flow.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..4fa22d2bb5d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_messy_flow.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_mr_inline_comments.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_mr_inline_comments.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..a18801f56e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_mr_inline_comments.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_production_branch.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_production_branch.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..c132d51bfb6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_production_branch.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_rebase.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_rebase.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..fe865177ba8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_rebase.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_release_branches.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_release_branches.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..0a7f61d0248
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_release_branches.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_remove_checkbox.png b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_remove_checkbox.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..fb0e792b37b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/topics/img/gitlab_flow_remove_checkbox.png
diff --git a/doc/topics/index.md b/doc/topics/index.md
index b51f24b02e4..71048ec5aa4 100644
--- a/doc/topics/index.md
+++ b/doc/topics/index.md
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ tutorials, technical overviews, blog posts) and videos.
 - [Authentication](authentication/index.md)
 - [Continuous Integration (GitLab CI)](../ci/README.md)
 - [Git](git/index.md)
+- [GitLab Flow](gitlab_flow.md)
 - [GitLab Installation](../install/README.md)
 - [GitLab Pages](../user/project/pages/index.md)