Thanks for your comment. To clarify, my comment was about "discussions of Git workflows." For example, the very discussion occurring here on HN in the wake of

Thanks for your comment. To clarify, my comment was about "discussions of Git workflows." For example, the very discussion occurring here on HN in the wake of the original post. In this discussion, you will find numerous comments predicated on the implicit belief that there is some global ordering on Git workflows and, therefore, that one workflow can be strictly better than others. Some examples from the top level: > I think http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ is simpler and more robust. [1] > Just use Gitflow peeps. It's simple, not mentally taxing, and having a feature branch for each feature (JIRA ticket, or whatever unit you're using) makes things very atomic and simple. [2] > How is this in any way better or simpler than Git Flow? [3] > Rebase is a bad habit to get into (because it means other people can't pull your branches), and a pain to fix when it conflicts. Merge master into your working branch instead. [4] Also, I didn't write 7 grafs to say "the best tool for the job." I wrote 7 grafs to say that there is no "the job." Rather, there are many different jobs. Your job might be to record the physical story. Mine might be to record the logical story. Different jobs. Links: [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7037265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7037265 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7037362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7037362 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7036934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7036934 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7037057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7037057