> It is my experience that I have had several times where merging/branching has caused a repo to “break”
What do you mean? Like you resolve the conflict correctly and git stops working? Stops working how? That sounds very strange, and anything else just seems like PEBKAC.
It's true that git does not 'break' from a merge; but merge conflicts (and rebase conflicts) can still be frustrating to resolve for ordinary users. And after things get too frustrating, they often do really random stuff that then might accidentally break the repo for real, or at least get it into a state where they don't have enough knowledge to recover.
Git's underlying data model is fine, but the user interface can be quite lacking. For example, 'git checkout' is a mess of almost unrelated functionality thrown together under one command.
I think the idea behind 'git switch' is a good one, and git could benefit from a complete overhaul of its user interface. Well, at least if you ignore the switching costs. Old farts like you and me have gotten used to the quirks of the bad old interface, and learned all the barely coherent options to 'git reset'.
What do you mean? Like you resolve the conflict correctly and git stops working? Stops working how? That sounds very strange, and anything else just seems like PEBKAC.