> Every modern CI/CD framework can run automated jobs after a merge into master, so I'm not sure what the criticism here is? The criticism (and the one thing I

> Every modern CI/CD framework can run automated jobs after a merge into master, so I'm not sure what the criticism here is? The criticism (and the one thing I can sort of agree on) is that with git flow you are not merging to "master" on a continuous basis. Select quotes from the nvie post describing gitflow: > When the source code in the develop branch reaches a stable point and is ready to be released, all of the changes should be merged back into master somehow and then tagged with a release number > The essence of a feature branch is that it exists as long as the feature is in development, but will eventually be merged back into develop (to definitely add the new feature to the upcoming release) > By doing all of this work [release prep] on a release branch, the develop branch is cleared to receive features for the next big release.