Simplified porcelains?

Actually, everybody uses what git calls branches in CVS (although CVS branches are something
different). If you're doing work in your local directory, and someone else makes a commit to
the central server, you don't see that change until you update; these two simultaneous
different states of the same project are what git calls branches. Git just makes this
explicit. Furthermore, everybody uses CVS's basic merging in update, and git is pretty similar
in the same situations.

The main difference between CVS and git in this regard is that CVS requires you to resolve
conflicts before committing, and git requires you to commit before resolving conflicts.
Obviously, if you sometimes fail when trying to resolve conflicts, git is nicer (because you
can get back your version and try again or try merging with only some of the changes at a time
or something).