Seconded. Mostly because I work with Tom, but I also use svn at work, because it really is the standard.

Distributed version control seems a bit like a fad to me. I admit it has some nice features, but I expect subversion to adapt the best that it doesn't already have (which isn't really all that much). They are already working on implementing local commits, which in my mind is the single biggest missing feature.

Right - version control doesn't strike me as a good place to play on the bleeding edge. I'll leave that to other people and spend time playing with something else experimental that won't lose a bunch of my critical data, or cause unexpected problems.

I agree completely - SVN is very standard, seems to be stable, and basically does everything most people will need. TortoiseSVN is a great client if you're using Windows.

The Linux kernel is fairly important and the kernel developers trust a "bleeding edge" VCS.

SVN is great for an individual or simple project, but sharing patches between branches is a nightmare.

It's more than fairly important, it's extremely important and big. That means that it's also a bit of an outlier in terms of lines of code, people involved, and so on, which is why Linus seems to have undertaken the painful project of making his own revision control thing.

I'll wait till he's shaken the bugs out until I give it a go, though, as being an early adopter gives me zero competitive advantage.

Thirded.

svn here too; plenty of nice clients and trac integration.

svn here too; plenty of nice clients and trac integration.