> these problems simply didn't exist or were not nearly as severe with previous revision control systems I (have to) use one of these systems you speak of with

> these problems simply didn't exist or were not nearly as severe with previous revision control systems I (have to) use one of these systems you speak of without the horrors of having to worry about merge histories or organizing any branches whatsoever. I have to worry that someone in California broke some code, somewhere right before lunch and it'll take me as long to workaround as it will to just take a second lunch. I have to worry that if I miss a release because of QA issues I need to spend a bunch of time reversing all my changes temporarily and then redoing them in a new release and hoping nothing got borked in between. I have to worry about how to show someone out of the office what my changes look like because they're still too janky to push into the release branch. If I'm working from home and Comcast decides I'm due for my weekly outage then I'm SOL. I have to worry about a failed commit going and locking files on other people because apparently I'm the only person ever to run a command that fails (granted, PEBCAK), so let's not worry about making that failure impact a centralized shared state in a negative way. You can spend a lot of time thinking about the best way to do something in git because it lets you do a lot. The choice is essentially "Elaborate workflows" vs "bridge the inadequacies of the tooling by brittle ritualized human processes". Git problems are VCS' first-world problems.