> If your team is avoiding a tool with a 1 in 16,000 chance of failure then they'd probably also want to avoid flying (1 in 20,000 chance of death by failure),

> If your team is avoiding a tool with a 1 in 16,000 chance of failure then they'd probably also want to avoid flying (1 in 20,000 chance of death by failure), large bodies of water (1 in 8,942) and run terrified from cars (1 in 100) (source: http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html. That's not how probability works. That assumes a uniform distribution, but it's not uniform at all: if you run the affected versions of git and run a particular sequence of commands, you will hit this problem every time. Assuming that the Linux community's workflow doesn't change that often, the Linux devs would likely never have hit this because they don't run that sequence commands. Because it's not actually random, we do have control over it, and your suggestion that we all just "get over" the fact that an important tool lost user data seems pretty cavalier.