I suspect some of the down votes are because what you mean by commit and what a git user means by commit is different. I suspect that most people using git are

I suspect some of the down votes are because what you mean by commit and what a git user means by commit is different. I suspect that most people using git are "committing" in a way that would better be handled with a versioned file system. AKA, translated for the git people, "you can work without the internet, you just don't issue pull requests (or pull for that matter)". Where I work now we still use CVS, and frankly it works fine (even with large binaries checked in). I ran git-cvs for a while, and had a dozen different branches for all the separate features I was working on. Then I found I was spending a metric crapload of time messing with the version control rather than writing code. CVS may be basic, but in a way that is a plus. It strongly encourages you not to have 20 different features being worked on at the same time, then merging this piece here to that piece there. No, its simple: Work on one thing in your working directory, commit it to the head, pull everyone's changes, go work on the next thing. Repeat. Eventually I kicked my git-cvs to the curb for plain old CVS. Gives me more focus. Now I can waste the time I spent on stack overflow (learning how to fix my git screwups) posting here...