On the topic of git... For the first 6 months I used git, which was because I started a new job where it was used, I stuck almost exclusively to a coworker's w

On the topic of git... For the first 6 months I used git, which was because I started a new job where it was used, I stuck almost exclusively to a coworker's wiki page, "<name>'s git cheatsheet". I remember re-cloning the repo so many times when chances are there was a way I could have fixed the mess I'd created. I didn't know what I was doing and it was very complicated. It had a steep learning curve. Now, some six years later, I still only use a handful of commands regularly, but really, aside from the painful-to-read man pages (they are very clear, but contain so many flags and other tidbits), I find it very simple to understand and to use. I rarely ever get confused. I'm not a big fan of `rebase` but I can see where it would have its purpose in merging feature branches back to the trunk/master (and if I can find a coworker using it in a nice, clear way, I might adopt it myself). I never use `--force` and recommend that everyone everywhere avoid it once they've pushed. But really, and there may be some "survivor bias" involved here, I think it's a very well done system for what it does, and I am generally able to reason pretty clearly about what's going on and help others figure out what their issues are. It's quite possible that bzr/hg/darcs is a better and cleaner way of doing the same tasks, and I still have no idea about many commands and I am sure there are things that I have glossed over thinking that I understand them... but it makes sense to me; I don't like any of the GUIs (though I tend to like to "live" in the terminal as much as possible, I've seen things I don't like in both Tower and Sourcetree), and it just seems right to me. Sorry to go off on a tangent there...