[skatanski]

I think I've read about git multiple times before I started using it. And even then at first it was with a dash of scepticism. I can't put my finger on that moment, the moment of clarity but it had to be quite glorious. Before, I was "what else do you need we have svn". Sounds horrible now that I think about it.

[rubberband]

Pfft. I believe that anyone who read about git, and responded "yeah, duh, it's so obvious" is a dirty, dirty liar.

An explanation of "interactive rebasing" to me might as well been an explanation of quantum entanglement to a learning-disabled ant.

Sometimes it still trips me up. I have an embarrassingly large number of copies of source folders, despite git's safety net of "don't worry, you can always restore it; pinky swear..."

[quickthrower2]

I would never rebase at the command line and avoid rebasing generally to the chagrin of team mates. A merge retains the information to reconstruct the rebase anyway so might as well use the simpler option. Unless there are a lot of commits such that in aggregate they conflict but individually they apply smoothly.