IMO: 1: Lead with the most critical differentiators versus git. Source control systems are a dime-a-dozen. The "I can do this better" projects that fail are a

IMO: 1: Lead with the most critical differentiators versus git. Source control systems are a dime-a-dozen. The "I can do this better" projects that fail are a dime-a-dozen. Get us hooked within the first 3 paragraphs. 2: I personally don't (usually) encounter performance issues with git. I get more from Visual Studio than git. The only performance issue are the random garbage collections, and those are infrequent. > When your parent branch gets updated, within seconds, grace watch will auto-rebase your branch on those changes 3: Automatically changing my code while I am working on it is a horrible idea. DO NOT DO THIS. Often, programming requires low distractions, and the distraction of changing the very thing that I am working on while I am working on it is a huge distraction. The dangers: - If I am trying to isolate a specific behavior, auto-rebase could change the behavior of what I'm trying to isolate while I'm trying to isolate it. - If the upstream rebase creates a build error, it will completely destroy my flow. (It makes me stop a task while I am incomplete.) This could happen if the parent branch has a renamed method, and my changes introduce a new call to that method. Instead, I suggest a very gentle notification about parent branch updates. Don't steal focus. Edit: I was lead developer on a desktop file sync client for 9 years. Whenever I had a support escalation from someone using us as source code control, I'd always recommend that the customer use git and tell them that we used Github. Source code repositories have A LOT of transient files that come and go very quickly, and are very hard on live file sync.