So, here's a story.

My first attempt at "revision control" was multiple copies of files: "main.cpp", "main_2.cpp", "main_2final.cpp", "main_2finalb.cpp", "main_2finalb_forreal.cpp", and so on.

This scheme clearly doesn't work.

So, in highschool, we started using SVN. We used it less for its versioning abilities than we did for its ability to function like a distributed file share (this was before Dropbox, which sucks rocks anyways). We stored lots of binary files in it (images, models, etc.), and sadness resulted, but it beat the hell out of the alternative.

In college, my SVN-foo upgraded--we used SVN properly: updating, resolving conflicts, and committing changes. It worked well enough, though it still sucked for binary stuff--and merging conflicts was a pain in the neck.

After college, we started using SVN more cleverly. We started limiting our commits to functional changes, and documenting very carefully what changed and why. We tagged branches for release, and kept the repo clean. We moved binaries off into their own repo.

At my first gig, we used SVN with Eclipse, which was pretty awesome. It had great merge functionality, it had great team support, and I even learned how to branch from mainline development in order to do my own projects. I did not learn, however, how to merge said branches back in any way which did not involve madness and suffering. Oh, and people would sometimes break the build, and if you were lucky you read that email (if they sent it!) before you updated in the morning.

My first few encounters with git were again using it as a distributed file share, this time hosted on Github--from hackathons and the like. I did not receive a very good explanation of it other than "that's what we're using for this project"; I suspect that unless you are really careful it is hard to explain to somebody new to git how to use it if you have experience yourself.

I later learned to use git to have multiple repos to push to, one for code, one for staging, and one for production. It was the most magical thing in the world--`git push production master` and then Heroku is showing my new website.

I finally learned branching and merging when doing my startup earlier this year; I'd heard about doing topic/feature branches, and we developed a workflow somewhat like GitFlow. I learned how that worked, and barring the occasional screwup found it very, very useful.

I'm currently implementing a helper tool for CI and issue tracking with GitFlow-style workflows. I've had to learn more about how to use the tool, how to manage branches, and all other things.

~

git is a much more complicated tool to use, effectively, than SVN--at the same time, I think that getting there is worth it.

I further think that people starting out learning a VCS would be well-served to use SVN; combine it with TortoiseSVN on Windows and it's pretty simple. `svn update`, `svn commit`.

That done, when you have a workflow where it makes sense, switch to git. Git shines for letting you rapidly test things out, and keeping you from stepping on other people's toes.

I have used SVN for remote team work, and for certain things it's great--library development, things where you need people not to sit on commits easily, etc. I think that SVN is a great tool for newer developers, and I think that it has uses to this day.

That said, once everyone is up to speed on basic git, your team should make the transition, because it enables you to have more complex workflows and do more powerful work.