True, but even after travelling along the RCS->VSS->CVS->SVN graph for the past 20 years I still find git baffling sometimes. I like it but the question is whether I want to invest my brain resources, which are a scarce resource at age 47, in learning a revision control system that can drive you into a cul-de-sac when using even the most basic workflow.
The model behind Git, the way the repository works/conceptual model, is incredibly simple. The only trick is learning which commands are used to make the changes you want, and that can take a little time (and Googling).
I thought I would try that, but I'm probably still not really thinking in Git. I never branch or merge for example, since I never think of doing that. I understand this isn't really normal git usage.
Me neither. But I think I should. Every time I want to try something new, take a new direction in code or add a new feature I should branch, so I can safely add or remove pieces of code. Things not related to that new feature, like bug-fixes, should be done in the main branch and then get pulled into the feature branch. I'm just too messy with my commits to do that, because it requires making frequent smaller commits, instead of huge ones once in a while.
I am familiar with that approach, but it's really not how I work. If I'm not done with a feature, I don't check in. And I've never needed to work on two features at the same time.
I think that Google is probably the best way to go, because not only will you get the man pages as high ranking hits, but you'll also get great hits from sites like StackOverflow and blogs that can explain things better.
