Never used it but I had to use ClearCase at work even though I was already proficient in git. Ugh. The centralized model is better for companies, but ClearCase

Never used it but I had to use ClearCase at work even though I was already proficient in git. Ugh. The centralized model is better for companies, but ClearCase really makes its best to make your life miserable: - You have to think twice before modifying a file, because the steps to be able to modify a file can take from 30 seconds (if you already created the activity) to a few minutes (if you have to create it) - Activities are supposed to be like branches, summing up all the changes. But there is no way to see all changes in one go. It's click everywhere, waiting for the server to reply on each click. - Because there is no way to display the branch content in any way other than envisioned by IBM, there is no way to discuss a changeset. No pull requests, no exchange, nothing. - Horrible UI/UX all around. It's slow, it's unreadable, random bugs happen all the time where the only fix is to restart the service, .... and it's expensive. I'm not advocating for a system that only works when online (although the fully integrated system of Google does sound good), just that it be architectured around a point of centralization. This is the way I'd like to use git: - A branch created locally will be synhcronized and visible to everyone by default - A branch that I manually tag as private won't, but it will still be saved on the server - A branch that has a conflict between me and someone else will be marked locally in some way (maybe a second branch ?) - Bonus: my working repo and staging area are also synhcronized to the server