I grew up with Linux and have used cvs, svn, git, and mercurial, not doing complex stuff, just basic. Out of all of them git is the most inconsistent and difficult to learn, both at the command level and in trying to deal with the docs and community around it. Everyone seems to think everyone else is a mathematician and every doc or message has this air of “if you don’t intrinsically understand DAGs then you’re just not worthy to use this tool”.

Isn’t `git commit --amend` enough? No need to reset and commit again.

Sometimes it's easier to undo & redo. That's the reset approach. (Reset, your mistake goes away, do it over again but right, then commit.)

Sometimes it's easier to just make another change. That's the amend approach. (Keep what you've got, which was almost right, make another change--add, delete, or edit--so it's right, and re-commit as if you'd made that additional change from the start.)

Maybe if you only need to add something, but not if you included something you didn't want to in the commit, but you still want to leave the change there.

> If you grew up with Unix commands it makes sense (mostly)

> I run a ton of aliases ... just to do basics.

So... it doesn't make sense then.