[brusch64]

I've been using Subversion since 10 years or so and I've changed completely to Git, so I've got experience with it.

For me Git was really a much needed upgrade to subversion. Working with branches (testing and production, we even have some repositories with multiple testing and production branches) are working like they are supposed to do. Changing commits (oops - I forgot to add one file) before pushing them to the repository for the other users is another big advantage. Working on multiple features in parallel - I couldn't do that with Subversion.

We've nearly completely eliminated the "handcrafted" local copies with multiple half finished features since changing to Git.

And if you want to use Git as a Subversion alternative you can use it in this mode too - altough you are missing out on some good new features.

I don't want to change back to Subversion.

The only disadvantage is that SourceTree (the GUI tool we are using) is a pretty lame duck in Windows. But the command line is excellent.

[TickleSteve]

So what problems exactly did you have with SVN?

branches are branches in svn or git... your process may not have been correct, but lets not blame the tools here..

modifying commits is a big no-no for me, so thats not a drawback at all, the fact that its not possible in svn is a win for svn.

[brusch64]

I really like modifying commits (as long as they are not pushed) - but I know that this is quite a controversial topic.

For one of our biggest projects branches in SVN didn't work at all.

We have multiple production, test and development branches and merge branches (features) from one branch to the other (development -> testing -> production). Sometimes we cherry pick a single commit to another branch.

In those days SVN wasn't so flexibel with branches as we wanted to (or we didn't understand it enough), so our workflow was much more rigid.