But here's the thing: There are reasons beyond tool support that would lead one to want to encourage or discourage branching and merging, and mere tool support is not reason enough to embrace a branch-driven workflow.As a consequence of its simplicity and repetitive nature, branching and merging are no longer something to be afraid of. Version control tools are supposed to assist in branching/merging more than anything else.
Let's take a moment to remember the history of git. It was developed by Linus Torvalds for use on the Linux project. He wanted something that was very fast to apply patches, and supported the kind of distributed workflow that you really need if you are supporting a huge distributed team. And he made something very, very, very fast, great for branching and distributed work, and difficult to corrupt.
As a result git has many virtues that align perfectly with the needs of a large distributed team. Such a team has potentially long cycles between an idea being discussed, being developed, being reviewed, and being adopted. Easy and fast branching means that I can go off and work on my feature for a few weeks, pulling from master all the while, without having a huge headache when it comes to finally merge that branch back into the core code base. In my work in ZooKeeper, I often wish I bothered to keep a git-svn sync going because reviewing patches is tedious and slow in svn. Git was made to solve my version control problems as an open source software provider.
But at my day job, things are different. I use git because a) git is FAST and b) Github. Fast makes so much of a difference that I'm willing to use a tool with a tortured command line syntax and some inherent complexity. Github just makes my life easier, I like the interface, and even through production outages I still enjoy using it. But branching is another story. My team is not a distributed team. We all sit in the same office, working on shared repositories. If you need a code review you can tap the shoulder of the person next to you and get one in 5 minutes. We release frequently; I'm trying to move us into a continuous delivery model that may eventually become continuous deployment if we can get the automation in place. And it is for all of these reasons that I do not want to encourage branching or have it as a major part of my workflow.
Feature branching can cause a lot of problems. A developer working on a branch is working alone. They might be frequently pulling in from master, but if everyone is working on their own feature branch, merge conflicts can still hit hard. Maybe they have set things up so that an automated build will still run through every push they make to that branch, but it's just as likely that tests are only being run locally and the minute this goes into master you'll see random failures due to the various gremlins of all software development. Worst of all, it's easy for them to work in the dark, shielded from the eyes of other developers. The burden of doing the right thing is entirely on the developer and good developers are lazy (or busy, or both). It's too easy to let things go for too long without code review, without integration, and without detecting small problems. From a workflow perspective, I want something that makes small problems come to light very early and obviously to the whole team, enabling inherent communication. Branching doesn't fit this bill.
Feature branching also encourages thinking about code and features as all or none. That makes sense when you are delivering a packaged, versioned product that others will have to download and install (say, Linux, or ZooKeeper, or maybe your iOS app). But if you are deploying code to a website, there is no need to think of the code in this binary way. It's reasonable to release code behind feature flags that is not complete but flagged off, for purposes of keeping the integration of that new code in for testing in other environments. Learning how to write code in such a way as to be chunkable, flaggable, and almost always safe to go into production is a necessary skill set for frequent releases of any sort, and it's essential if you ever want to reach continuous deployment.
Release branching may still be a necessary part of your workflow, as it is in some of our systems, but even the release branching parts of the git-flow process seems a bit overly complex. I don't see the point in having a develop branch, nor do I see why you would care about keeping master pristine, since you can tag the points in the master timeline where you cut the release branch. (As an aside, the fact that the original post refers to "nightly builds" as the purpose of the develop branch should raise the eyebrows of anyone doing continuous integration.) If you're not doing full continuous deployment you need to have some sort of branch that indicates where you cut the code for testing and release, and hotfixes may need to go into up to two places, that release branch and master, but git-flow doesn't solve the problem of pushing fixes to multiple places. So why not just have master and release branches? You can keep your release branches around for as long as you need them to get live fixes out, and even longer for historical records if you so desire.
Git is great for branching. So what? Just because a tool offers a feature, and does it well, does not mean that feature is actually important for your team. Building a whole workflow around a feature just because you can is rarely a good idea. Use the workflow that your team needs, don't cargo cult an important element of your development process.