This post made my day...

Except there is no such thing as stable version cause it’s only naming convention that describes point in time where group of people agreed that this version is good enough for public use.

@vane I'd have massive problems if that was applied to me then. I'm not sure I've ever been considered good enough for public use 😂

@AlmondSauce I think regarding people it’s called psychiatric facility.

If he go there they will roll back him to latest stable version or deprecate his repository.

I vote for second option.

This person doesn't seem to understand the difference between Git and GitHub.

Git reset hard ... Now head detached ... No thanks i will stay a human thank you

How dare you!

It would be nice to be able to create a bunch of branches, run a few experiments, and see what passes the test suite.

It does pose a few questions though...

What can I use? git log? git show? patch apply? Are conflicts easy to resolve?

Wife: "Why is there another hot girl next to you in bed?" -- Me: "I did a git cherry-pick from a branch where I courted her, and then resolved all conflicts with the main branch" -- Wife: "I do not see any issues with this".

Also is it unethical to torture someone on an unmerged branch which is never pushed to remote?

I know git purists get angry about this, but what about rewriting history, squashing or even completely altering commits from the past?

I mean, can I erase complete wars, flip elections, resurrect people, all with zero negative consequences -- or at least infinite opportunity to keep applying patches?

Age: -1

--blame feature works very well, though

@bittersweet yes yes yes to all of these