So if you mix up one kind of workflow with another, you can really shoot yourself in the foot. There's people that have a merge-based workflow, a rebase-based one, more advanced projects (Linux kernel) have something more bespoke. Getting used to one project, then using those practices in another, can really mess you up.
Eg compare https://git-scm.com/docs/git-switch to git checkout.
I'll admit that Git is the only VCS I've spent any time with, so maybe I just don't know how much better it could be. But I've almost never had an issue with Git where I actually lost code. And anytime I'm doing something dangerous, I just make a backup copy of the directory in case I screw up irrevocably. But even if I'm doing something nasty, the reflog is there, and the cases where I've need to use my backup copy are very few and far between.
That seems like one of the absolute basics. "Almost" never...?
> I just make a backup copy of the directory in case I screw up irrevocably
If you really felt you could trust your source control system, that shouldn't be needed, and...
> the cases where I've need to use my backup copy
...should be nonexistent.
There are also situations where you need to use these commands and you're not ready to commit everything.
The safe way to handle this is generally making a stash commit and immediately applying it, but if you don't know that, or don't think to do that first, the result can be data loss.
Git is very careful about commits but if you never staged something then git can be ruthless.
I can think of exactly one time I actually lost code and I was doing ill advised reflog fuckery.
I take your point, but I stand by my opinion that in virtually all normal usage, git just isn't that hard. YMMV.
Yes that's true, but what you've probably forgotten is that understanding the basic operations is way way harder than it should be thanks to Git's terrible CLI, nomenclature and general UX.
I would also argue that the lack of an obviously good GUI makes it quite a lot harder for beginners, and the attitude that a lot of HN commenters have that you shouldn't use a GUI, despite Git being an obviously visual thing.
Btw any beginners reading this, I would recommend Git Extensions. Terrible name which led to me not trying it for ages, but it's actually one of the best. In particular it lets you browse the repo at every commit which is something that makes it way clearer what Git is doing.
From there, I find it straightforward to conceptualize all the different commands. Commit/push/reset/merge/pull/rebase/etc are all just different graph manipulations. There's usually multiple ways to achieve the end graph you want.
If you don't understand the data structure, you have no good mental model and it's just a series of ritual. If something goes off the ritual path, you're in trouble.
I remember when I first was introduced to Git I found it confusing, so I'm sympathetic to newbies who have to cross over the learning curve, but I think the main day-to-day Git operations just aren't that much to learn. What is it about Git that people find so difficult, even after using it for a while?