1. Checkout B. 2. Merge A into B. 3. Git tells you there's a merge conflict and what to do to fix it: "Auto-merging foo CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in foo Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result." 4. Edit foo and fix the conflict. 5. "git add foo" 6. Commit.
What's the problem?
What I meant to say is that you're not going to get away with using any sort of complex system without understanding what it's doing. This seems to be the sentiment expressed in the original posting, and some of the replies here.
Sure, Git's UI could be improved. But managing several divergent histories and correctly merging them together is a non-trivial problem. If you make a tool that allows the user to just plow on without understanding the underlying paradigm the results are going to suffer.
It's like asking for a RDBMS that allows you to "just do it". You might get away with that for a while, but not for long.
Really? I've got state A and state B. I tell my DVCS to merge them into state C. After reviewing the automatically guessed changes and manually changing the things which could not be guessed, I commit C'. C' is successor to both A and B.
What exactly has been lost / destroyed here?