Git is a blub. Compared to nothing svn is awesome! It is more then just the distributed nature. There are so many features that Git brings over older revision control systems that if I was forced to use an old one (and not allowed to use git-svn or something) I would change jobs. I can simply be way more productive with Git.
I agree. And for me, the awesomeness didn't really sink in from reading the documentation. I had to actually use it to be won over. Whereas, if you've used CVS, SVN is a breath of fresh air, but it just doesn't blow you away.
This is provocative comment. I use svn every day. It seems to meet all my needs. I find it logical, fast enough, tags, branches, and merging make sense, etc. When I started hearing about git, I looked at the docs and a couple of tutorials, and my conclusion was that it was esoteric. Nothing stood out as "wow that would be really cool" or "wow that's something I have wished I could do but svn doesn't let me". If it's "fast" that's nice, but not enough of a reason for me to switch; I don't feel like my productivity is really hampered very much waiting for svn operations. So, I never actually tried using git.
But, your remarks have intrigued me, so I might give it a try on a couple of personal projects I want to get done.
The awesomeness starts from git init; git add . (or in my case, hg init; hg add). Even if you don't use anything else, this is a big improvement over Subversion.
(The pg article that coined "Blub" (http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html) uses it as the name of a middle of the road language between machine language on the low end of the power scale and Lisp on the high end. So Blub is to Lisp as SVN is to Git.)
