I'm using both on different projects. I've run into some subversion bugs and never had any problems with git so far. I'm a fairly boring user who uses the command line interface and doesn't do anything very tricky. I'm enthusiastically using git for all my new stuff.
I definitely think all open source projects should move to distributed revision control, like git, so the commit access problem is eliminated.
Git looks really cool, but there just isnt enough support yet to make it a viable alternative to SVN, IMHO. Once there is a good Eclipse plug in, Apache extension, etc we may switch over but until then Git looks to be only really be useful to the most hardcore (think Linux kernel developers).
Asking some folks who know about such things in detail, they said this about Git:
- Designed specifically to deal with managing the Linux kernel
- Not suited for large projects
- Reliability of the database is way below acceptable levels.
I suggest that "those folks" don't have a clue, at least if their quoted response is any indication. Git is plainly "suited for large projects" (if the kernel qualifies as large), and I'm mystified as to why they think the "database" is unreliable in comparison with other VC systems (Git places a pretty strong emphasis on guaranteeing that exactly the same content that was put into the system can be subsequently retrieved).
This goes to show it's an issue. The source is a very smart guy, but I too was confused about the "large project" comment. I work in robotics, whose systems can get very, very large.
And perhaps by large, he means many different projects in a company. I don't know enough about Git to say.
I definitely think all open source projects should move to distributed revision control, like git, so the commit access problem is eliminated.