I essentially agree, which is why I conjectured that plq was recalling incorrectly, based perhaps on second- or third-hand accounts of Shaw's problem. My hope

I essentially agree, which is why I conjectured that plq was recalling incorrectly, based perhaps on second- or third-hand accounts of Shaw's problem. My hope was that plq would clarify either with a pointer or something else more than "IIRC". The only thing I disagree with your assessment is that "ignorance" and "newbie misunderstanding" can sometimes be due to bad design, which is a design bug vs. an implementation bug. In the Shaw case, there was a bug in the code which widened the gap between the user model and how the code actually worked, and that gap did cause data loss, just not in committed data. Also not in a way that could be handled in git with reflog, as plq suggested. This is a more expansive definition of "bug" than software developers, who are often more focused on the implementation than the user interaction model and as XKCD points out are very good at memorizing arcane commands, typically use. Hipp wrote that he might have done the same thing as Shaw, which means that specific case wasn't "purely a newbie misunderstanding." I think that was a humble and magnanimous statement which cut off some of the blame-the-user flamewar that can all too often happen in developer-driven project. As I recall, Shaw noticed this, and thanked Hipp for the way he responded. I've tried to bear it in mind since then.