Yes I do. Rust's strong type system makes logic bugs less likely, because you can encode more invariants into the type system.
This also makes it easier to refactor and add features without risk of breaking things.
The borrow checker also encourages ownership structures that are less error-prone.
Finally the more modern tooling makes it easier to write tests.
If you're thinking "where is the peer reviewed study that proves this?" then there isn't one, because it's virtually impossible to prove even simple things like that comments are useful. I doubt there's even a study showing that e.g. it's easier to write Python than assembly (although that one probably isn't too hard to prove).
That doesn't mean you get to dismiss everything you disagree with simply because it hasn't been scientifically proven.
The things I'm talking about have been noted many times by many people.
OK, but I'm not convinced for this specific case. And it wouldn't take a peer reviewed study to convince me. Issues in the git submodules handling that you could link to C's lack of safety would suffice.
However what you're doing is to reply with the same platitudes and generalities that all rust aficionados seem to have ready on demand. Sure, rust is better at those things, but I don't see how that would make a rewrite of an existing feature better by default. I don't doubt that new features of git that would be written in rust will be safer and more ergonomic, but for existing code to be rewritten, which is what I understand to be your stance, I remain skeptical.