> 1) tfs: shelves are named and can be worked with independently; git: stashes (...) I don't think your comparison makes sense. Git stash is a way to quickly g

> 1) tfs: shelves are named and can be worked with independently; git: stashes (...) I don't think your comparison makes sense. Git stash is a way to quickly get to a clean local workspace that can be reversed as you see fit. You use local branches to track independent work. > tfs: can't commit unresolved merge conflicts; git: commits just fine Again, this doesn't make sense. In git, users determine whether a conflict is resolved or not. If you commit a changeset originating from a merge conflict, you have to explicitly state that the conflict was resolved and your changes are good. > Feature branches are advertised as a big fat killer feature of git, but I don't quite see the win here, you still have merge conflicts. Honestly I didn't understood what point you tried to make. Merge conflicts happen because multiple sources of change touch the same document region in a way that can't be resolved automatically, thus needing human intervention. To the best of my knowledge, there is no cvs in the world that eliminates merge conflicts. Regarding Git's support for feature branches, the fact that you don't understand the big win Git brought to the world with it's branching model is already a testament to how groundbreaking Git was at the time, and how everyone around was quick to roll out Git clones that follow the same approach. To see what I mean, spend a day working with a SVN repository trying to do work involving feature branches. > git: if something happens to the branch label, the commits are gone. Aren't you actually saying that if you delete a branch then the branch is deleted?