"Once you start talking about branching, merging, rebasing, multiple remotes, remote-tracking branches, detached HEAD states… Git becomes less of an easily-unde

"Once you start talking about branching, merging, rebasing, multiple remotes, remote-tracking branches, detached HEAD states… Git becomes less of an easily-understood tool and more of a feared deity. Anybody who talks about no-fast-forward merges is regarded with quiet superstition, and even veteran hackers would rather stay away from rebasing “just to be safe”." "That’s why trying to understand Git in this way is wrong. Git doesn’t work like Subversion at all. Which is pretty confusing, right?" These kind of assumptions of the reader can be quite off-putting. If you don't relate to assertions like this in the introduction, you start to wonder if the rest of the article is based on these assumptions. I user SVN happily for years before moving to Git a number of years back, and the conceptual migration felt really smooth. It was just like SVN, but with some nice new native branching tools and features, like in SVN you were forced to merge trunk changes to feature branches, whereas in Git you also have the option to "move" i.e. rebase the branch onto a newer commit. The rest of the article was very good!