[artificer]

Each version control model has it's own merits and drawbacks, and there will always be situations where one is good and another isn't. For example, while many OSS projects have switched to distributed vc's such as git and mercurial, two of the largest oss projects still remain loyal to Subversion, FreeBSD and KDE. If you search their mailing list archives, you will see that after long thought, both projects decided that the Subversion model reflects better their development style. So, no, git is not simply "better" than subversion, it just reflects a different development methodology.

[albertcardona]

The nice part is that with git, one can interact with svn projects seamlessly via git-svn -- so endless local commits may be repacked to one single remote commit or push.

But svn lacks suh flexibility to interact with others. Hence git > svn, as in svn is a tiny subset of git.

[artificer]

It's not so simple. For example, if I remember correctly,git lacks a way to checkout and work on a small subset of a development tree, as it tracks whole trees at a time. This feature is something that svn and cvs offered long ago. To do that with git you have to break the tree into small sub-trees, as the X.org guys have done. This may be considered as a drawback for some people.

For more information on why git was not chosen instead of svn for FreeBSD you can look at http://wiki.freebsd.org/VCSWhy

Again, each vc has it's uses, and nothing is merely a 'subset' of another.