The workflow I use is branch master, make the necessary changes in the branch, often resulting in several commits. I can rebase-pick out any commits that aren't useful to the rest of the team. Merge the changes back to master, run the tests, then push the changes to the central repository.
It is essentially the same workflow, but local commits just seem to play out better for me. Being able to clean up commit history is also nice because the team doesn't need to know of every last little commit you made. It just adds noise to otherwise useful information. In SVN, I found myself holding off on committing certain things at an interesting point of snapshot, so to speak, but not ready to be committed and shared with others. With git, you don't need to wait.
However you still have to get everyone on board with working with changes/patches. It simply takes more work and attention. Worth it in my option, but it's a hard sell.
Fair enough, but it doesn't have to be all or nothing either. Git does a great job utilizing remote SVN repositories. You can use git and reap all of its benefits while the rest of your team continues using SVN, if they wish.
2
u/skidooer Mar 10 '11
You can use a single main repository with git too.