Git transition workflow

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Paul Michael Reilly writes:

 > Am I wrong, and it is intuitively obvious how we are going to deal
 > with git and branches, rebasing, reviews, etc?

Having observed several of these transitions, including Emacs's
CVS->Bazaar transition, it's really not a problem as long as the git
fans accept that several major contributors just want a CVS-like
workflow, and git commands that implement that workflow are explained
in straightforward terms.

Based on bzr experience, Emacs is not going to change its basic focus
of on-trunk development with release branches (and there's no need to
do so at present).  The people who might actually want to rebase
already know why it can be dangerous, and how to do it safely.  The
review process isn't going to change (and there's no pressing need to
do so, and several potential minuses to making it more stringent -- cf
the famous play, "Death of a Version Control System", whose
protagonists were really big on formal process).