Does anyone here using Git for version control have any experience (good or bad) relating to how well different releases of Git work together?
To cut a short story long:
I am considering Git for some planned home projects, but due to my hodge-podge range of setups using default pacakges from repositories will mean being a full point release different. I plan to keep a master repository (which other people may be reading and branching from) on a server that runs Ubuntu 8.04 whcih means v1.5.x if I use the pakages from the standard repo (that may get upgraded to 10.04 in the coming months, which would mean the Git packages upgrading to 1.7.x) but my netbook runs the newer 9.10 which has Git v1.6.x. My main Windows machine I've not decided what to do with yet (as there is no package management to use it could either get any version directly, or I might use an Ubuntu VM for development).
As an extra complication, I'm likely to want to interact with a couple of projects currently on GitHub too (and perhaps drop some of my code there too as I intend for it to be OSS).
I'm happy to compile up my own copies of what-ever version is best (i.e. the stable version closest what GitHub runs, presumably 1.7.x) if that is the only reliable way to proceed, but if I'm unlikely to experience problems pulling changes between 1.5/1.6/1.7 then I'd prefer to keep to the standard repository versions to make updates/upgrades of Git as painless as possible.
I've not found any reference to this after a few searches, which leads me to believe cross-version compatibility is good (if there were significant problems I'd expect there to be obvious mention in the release notes and to find posts in various places from people asking how to deal with issues).