I have found the tutorials and references on git-scm.com to be effective. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;git-scm.com&#x2F;doc" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;git-scm.com&#x2F;doc</a><p>Learning and adopting Git was definitely worth it for me and organizations I&#x27;ve worked with. It provides advantages that are difficult to describe in words and best experienced first hand [1]. Once you understand it, it&#x27;s like a swiss army knife, or a power tool capable of manipulating source code commits any way one desires. The user experience might not be simple, but the <i>semantics</i> are simple in a way that makes operations easy to perform in Git that are challenging in other source control systems.<p>You can probably take better advantage of source control than checking in on a monthly basis. Personally, I recommend checking in about every 30 minutes to folks I work with. However, we&#x27;re used to quick release cycles where code might reach production hours after we submit it, not years. I personally favor frequent commits also because it acts as an additional layer of protection against data loss, as well as facilitating frequent code reviews and visibility by coworkers, frequent integration testing, etc. These benefits support developing code as a team, and support a quick release process.<p>If you&#x27;d like to learn Git, then I&#x27;d recommend integrating it into your daily habits such that you&#x27;re committing regularly, perhaps every 30 minutes to an hour. It will be difficult to learn the tool effectively if you use it only once per month.<p>[1] I&#x27;m happy to try if anyone wishes, but there are plenty of arguments out there. I would summarize by saying that Git simply works better than anything else I&#x27;ve used, including CVS, Subversion, Perforce, etc. Upon familiarizing myself with Git, it feels like those tools, through lack of capability, create a lot of problems and friction that Git avoids.