Yes and no. Most often conflicts could have been handled automatically with better tools. For example I have a script that makes a copy of the whole folder and tries to merge each commit using all of git’s different merge stategies, and all sub stategies, and presents which ones can merge without any conflicts. It has been mind opening. Why git doesn’t have this built-in I don’t understand.

Git also writes (non-logs) to the .git folder for operations that you would assume should have been r/o, but that’s another problem (that affects things later on).

People are still having a problem with distributed version control, because some people want to force ”the server’s” history down the throats of all coworkers.

This can not be solved with tech, it’s a people problem.

Conflicts between branches is only a symptom of conflicts between people. Some want individual freedom to manage branches in whatever way (and these people are usually very open to other people managing branches in another way), but some people are against this freedom and thinks branches should be managed centrally by an authority (such people usually have a problem working on their own).

If it hurts, do it more often.