Comes up in every conversation I have about Emacs, Git, CSS, etc: Just because a tool is the best at what it does, that doesn't necessarily mean it's good at what it does. Those are two different metrics.

There's no danger of me dropping Git, the best alternative I've seen is Fossil and (opinion me) I think Fossil makes more mistakes than Git does. But Git definitely still has flaws; a lot of this post rings true to me.

I do think that Git gets a lot better the more that you understand how it works. Not perfect, a lot of the flaws being pointed out here are core flaws with Git's internals and have nothing to do with the UI. But it does get significantly better; some of the failure modes are much easier to avoid if you've spent time digging into how Git works, and the whole thing starts to feel a lot more elegant the more that the abstractions are stripped away. But that's also kind of a flaw in itself: Git's user interface is much more complicated than the underlying program or concepts are, which is obviously not great.