I agree that "read committed" is clearer in knowing what you're getting than "repeatable read". The latter can be convenient and workable if you accept that you will need to do locking to avoid write skew, etc.
I've used both "read committed" and "repeatable read" with MySQL and learned to deal with each in their own way.
The problem I've seen is with large/long-lived transactions that impact performance, where the solution is to divide writes into smaller transactions in the design--"read committed" does tend to encourage smaller transactions.
I've used both "read committed" and "repeatable read" with MySQL and learned to deal with each in their own way.
The problem I've seen is with large/long-lived transactions that impact performance, where the solution is to divide writes into smaller transactions in the design--"read committed" does tend to encourage smaller transactions.