The thing with git (the way I see it more and more while working with it) is that it barely cares if it makes sense to the 'lay user', it instead cares about wr

The thing with git (the way I see it more and more while working with it) is that it barely cares if it makes sense to the 'lay user', it instead cares about wrapping the most fundamental operations on text files. And that's a good thing in my book. I would not like seeing all this ruined just because it was 'zomg too confusing, not useful for most users'. As the author intimates, most of the problems with git are problems of UI - the UI is simply not very good, it's confusing, inconsistent and too intimately tied with the implementation. This can and should be fixed. This is a really interesting article, even if you don't agree with it, and the author has a deep understanding of version control systems (works on hg). There's no need to be dismissive of it.