[stephengillie]

1. Some of this does look like ignorance on the part of my coworker who set up both. But why isn't that a default setting? Why give that permission to all users?

2. This is true only if other users keep local copies of the main repository, keep it updated, and don't mix it in with their code. You're making a lot of assumptions.

[eddiedunn]

1. When I set up Git on my Linux server only the user that initiated the repo had access to it. It was too locked down, seeing as external users didn't even have read/cloning permission. (A minimal amount of googling solved all my problems, though.) Your problem sounds to me as another PEBCAC on the part of your coworker.

2. I'm not making all the assumptions you claim. First of all, as soon as you clone a repo you have a local copy. You need this clone in order to be able to even work with the code, so it would be quite weird if employees deleted their clone after editing, committing, and pushing their changes. I'm not even sure what you mean with "mix it in with their code". It's a VCS -- if you don't like a change reverting it is trivial.

All in all, I understand why users might have problems with Git. It has a steep learning curve. I think it has a horrible command line UI. It might not have worked well for your company, even if you had a competent admin set up the repos. However, I would prefer if you could argue your point based on the actual merits and faults of Git, rather than based on ignorance.

[joeriel]

Your second statement shows a complete lack of understanding of VCS in general.