The point I'm hoping to make is that there is no universal < operator on workflows that lets us rank them in a way that makes sense for most teams. Different te

The point I'm hoping to make is that there is no universal < operator on workflows that lets us rank them in a way that makes sense for most teams. Different teams necessarily have their own, widely varying < operators, and applying these operators to the set of plausible workflows causes wildly varying workflows to rise to the top. There are, however, workflows that are so bad that they rank poorly under your < operator, my < operator, and just about every other reasonable person's < operator. Your example makes this painfully clear. Still, someone at the company you interned at had an < operator that pushed that horrible workflow to the top of the list. You can argue that that person was crazy, and maybe you would be right, but maybe that person wasn't. Maybe that person's < operator accounted for things you couldn't see. Maybe the company needed the Git workflow to contort itself into integrating with legacy processes that would have been hugely expensive to change. Whatever the reason, that person's < operator is not one that you or I would want to have forced upon us. Why then should we assume our personal < operators good enough to force upon anybody else, let alone everybody else?