[CaptainMorgan]

To the best of my knowledge, git is for smaller teams that need more of an ability to be dynamic (maybe web apps dev) whereas subversion is for larger teams that need centralization (network/server; maybe large systems - however Torvalds would disagree here since git was initially for kernel dev).

[samdk]

Having Git be a distributed VCS doesn't mean it can't have a centralized server though. If you want you can use Git as something very similar to Subversion--you just lose out on a lot of the nicest parts of Git.

I think the biggest challenge with using Git in a large organization is training a large number of people to use it. You can do a fair amount of development on a Subversion project knowing just how to update and commit. The same does not hold true of Git.

[dlsspy]

> I think the biggest challenge with using Git in a large organization is training a large number of people to use it. You can do a fair amount of development on a Subversion project knowing just how to update and commit. The same does not hold true of Git.

Is that because you also have to know how to push?

You can push git down to the LCD and have the same dumb VCS workflows. I think some people get hung up on thinking that new features being available must mean that you need to incorporate those new features into your workflows.