> branches cost nothing. They are very lightweight, unlike in SVN, you should create as many as you want.
Ahhhh. So the distinction matters if you bring in a bad assumption from SVN. It had never occurred to me that a labeled branch would be noticeably more expensive than the weight of the commits making up the branch.
> you can put a branch anywhere you want. You like an old commit and wanna try something new from it? Plant your flag here and start working.
Well... yeah. That's how you create branches. You go to the commit you want to branch from, and you run `git branch`. The fact that you can do this is immediately implied by the way you have to do it. I don't understand how someone could believe something different.
> deleted a branch by mistake ? No worry, it's just a label. You can recreate it in a blink.
This one's a little weirder; if you delete a branch, you _can_ recreate it, but it's only blink-of-an-eye easy to do if there's another branch containing the head of the old branch. Otherwise you're mucking around in the internal data.
> this branch is so good it should be master? Sure you can. Just swap the labels.
This is another one where I don't see how you would believe something different. Even if branches were huge, heavyweight objects, they have names, and changing the name of something is generally not so hard to do. There's a command solely for the purpose of renaming branches. (`git branch -m`)
> moving to a branch is cheap. Apart from moving the files to the working copy, it's just a matter of changing point of view on the history. Switch to branches often, it's fast.
And in my mental model, a checkout is indeed a (potentially mass) update to file contents (and, if applicable, file existence). Saying "apart from moving the files to the working copy" sounds -- to my ears -- kind of like the chestnut that "controlled for height, taller men earn no more than short men do". Setting up the working copy is the thing I'm looking to accomplish in a checkout.
I can imagine two types of people who want git training:
- Never used version control.
- Used subversion heavily; trying to update to the new new thing.
In your opinion, how many of these points are "git gotchas" that the first group need to be trained in, and how many are "subversion gotchas" that only really come up for the second group?