[geezerjay]

> The main practical concern was that we need to make long-lived releases of our components that we would need to support in the long term. Git flow (and, at the time, its opinionated tooling) just assumes you have the one master branch for making releases.

This is patently false. I really don't know where or even how you got that idea. Git flow holds release branches quite prominently, and the use case they cover is a carbon copy of what you complained git flow didn't supported. It's as if the decision to push aside git flow was made in spite of being entirely oblivious to what git flow actually is in its most basic aspects.