> That means that both you and those people do not fully grasp the concept. The problem I have is that those misunderstandings are spread such that I have to de

> That means that both you and those people do not fully grasp the concept. The problem I have is that those misunderstandings are spread such that I have to deal with it. Especially those that do not understand Git at all keep merging balls of merges of merges. Then they lose track, and decide to just merge main again because something broke and they hope that Git will solve it with just one more merge. I would take a step further and say the root cause is not users who do not fully grasp a concept of Git, but who fail to grasp one of the most fundamental aspects of version control systems: branching and merging. Git just happens to take a bad rap because it's ubiquitous and for some it's the only VCS they ever used. Of course a bad workman blames his tools. If the tool they are using is Git then of course that's the one being thrown under the bus. What is perplexing is how this problem is then approached by people who are expected to know better by framing it as something only a bad tool would do, and thus they roll out yet another tool that does the same thing and poses the same problems. In the case of jj, they even claim to fix git by running git as the backend. Think about that for a second.