> Are you judging with that experience? Yes. Again, merge conflicts are intuitive (there were two different edits to the same code; you have to resolve the con

> Are you judging with that experience? Yes. Again, merge conflicts are intuitive (there were two different edits to the same code; you have to resolve the conflict). But yet again Git makes things difficult - using words like "Ours" and "Theirs" (when they're often both "ours"). It even gets them backwards in some cases! Rebases are also pretty intuitive. For once it's not too bad a name - you take all the changes in a branch and reapply them to a new base commit. Re-base. > Internally, it's a bunch of hashed and interlinked files. Git only collects them to show us a snapshot. That is the snapshot. It's deduplicated but it is still a snapshot. I'm not sure what your point is here. > Thinking that these are snapshot operations will make the operation much more hard to imagine and predict. It really doesn't. It just means you have to describe what things do properly. Rebase calculates the changes from one diff to another and tries to apply those changes again from a different starting point. Easy no?