Using Git; more unlearning CVS

So, I trip up again when using git; Thinking that the commit works the same way as in CVS.

Of course it doesn't!

you need to do a git add and then follow it up with a git commit every time. In CVS, you need to do an add only when creating a new file. But in Git, every time the contents of the file changes you need to add before you commit.

A quick google check reveals that git tracks content not the file names. And this blogpost was even more clearer on how assuming things from other SCM versions will confuse you with Git.

To be honest, git does warn you about it and as usual, I took it to be background noise. :)

Wrapping my head around the distributed version control model

Reading and playing with Git, I keep comparing it with CVS and predictably end up confused. So when Kate offered to answer any questions on Git, I jumped at the chance.

One that bothered me was how the main repository was identified; Kate's explanation was good enough to clear my doubts.

Learning Git or rather how not to learn it

Seems like it's not a good idea to have a pre-conceived notion of CVS SCM model in mind while learning Git.

Going through the kernel.org links, especially this one, I kept waiting for the explanation of the central repository.

Kept reading and kept waiting.

Till I read this which left me nonplussed. Especially this part

Git differs from CVS in that every working tree contains a repository with a full copy of the project history, and no repository is inherently more important than any other.

Ack!

OK, now it appears I have to unlearn a couple of things before I can fully grasp Git. (There goes my perception, you know one SCM tool, all others are a variation of that)

Let's see how much I get sorted out.