As a ratio, subversion has more people who use it recently than git does. Interesting, you would think that if people were using git, they would be using it much more frequently than subversion (due to local commits).
Personally, I think both git and hg are broken in different ways, but either still beats svn. Why do git users (as it seems to me) constantly evangelize their product over all others?
I have to admit we still use svn at work (although I've started using git at home on personal stuff) but at the moment the most frequent task I use git for is still simply cloning stuff from github.
I would never go back to SVN. And this is not a zealot-thing in which I'm stating an opinion to protect an investment -- Git is so much better that it isn't even funny.
That said we are a very small team and all in the same office so it hasn't been an issue.
I suspect we will slowly start moving new projects over to git though.
To this day, I've yet to hear an argument for git's superiority that wasn't predicated on:
- The assumption that hiding your work in a local branch is somehow a general feature instead of being detrimental to communication and optimized for Linux's development model, or
- Based on a 2003-era understanding of SVN and its support for merge tracking, branch switching, etc.
I keep hearing a lot of enthusiasm but not much to back it up. Do you have a different take than the above?
People used to working with tortoise or versions for mac still use vanilla svn, which is a big reason of why it's kept around.