Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I don't care about usage of git/hg. That can be dealt with on the job, and is no worse than hiring someone from another shop. As a matter of fact and recommendation, I don't think atomic commits are a great practice to follow in general anyway.
I agree. I wasn't going to turn this into a general conversation about branching, but since others are going there... I really dislike gitflow for release-to-web projects. Any form of branching creates integration debt to be paid later. Maybe it's worth it, for instance, when discussing a new feature in its own branch. But gitflow's assumption of a heavyweight "release" process just isn't an accurate reflection of ho…
Simpler is better; but when your actual code path of support looks like a network, that's the complexity you have to eat - I recommend eating it in your branching system (correspondingly, your versioned artifacts get some really funny version identifiers too. :) ).