Hi, I've used many VCS system over the years, RCS, PVCS, CVS, SNV, Clearcase, Visual source safe and more recently Git and Mercurial.
Moving from Git from SVN is fairly easy but there's a few conceptual things that are very different. I'd say it's the equivalent from going from a file locking VCS to concurrent one. It's a bit scary at first but you get use to it and it works very well. But it did take a little while to me to get use to it and every now and then I still try to use it like SVN. - Commits are done locally. Means it's very fast and you can make lots of small changes and document them well. - Branches are more like tags. Branching is cheap and fast. Switching between branches is fast. You use branches a lot but generally (in my experience) these are local and not always shared. - Merging is far less painful than SVN. Tool support is generally good and on par with SVN but you do need to use the command line form time to time. Syncing branches can be a little tricky at first depending on how you are using it but that's no different to SVN. Git commands can be a bit more cryptic than SVN but perhaps that just because I've not used it as long. I really like that commits are done locally ie you don't need internet access when working on the code and than it's easy to share work in progress with other developers without checking back into the main repository. As it gives you more freedom than SVN getting the processes right may be more effort and I'm guessing different people use it in different ways more so than SVN. Thanks, Justin
