Possible Duplicate:
What is the difference between all the different types of version control?
Dear all:
I have just started to use SVN for version control but there always is a lot of talk going on about Version Control system like GIT, Mercurial, SVN, CVS etc.
What makes one version control system better from another? Or Is one type of version control system good for one task and another type good for some other task? Or Are all the version control system basically the same?
No, I don't think they're the same. The centralized (e.g., SVN, CVS, etc.) versus distributed (Git, Mercurial, etc.) repository is a fundamental difference that reflects the way your development team operates.
I use SVN. I think that my organization's collective heads would explode if a distributed SCM system like Git was introduced. It's such a different concept for most people.
Distributed Version Control Systems (DVCSs) like GIT, Mercurial and Bazaar do collectively have advantages in flexibility of workflow and operation compared to centralized CVSs such as SVN or CVS. See the discussion on wikipedia.
As for the choice among DVCSs, that's as highly debated as (say) that between vi and emacs;-). On a "horses for courses" basis you might pragmatically pick hg (Mercurial) if you're going to be using code.google.com, Bazaar if you're going to use Launchpad, GIT if you're going to use github, for example.
Most of it is personal preference; Git and Mercurial are distributed source control systems, and better if you have a distributed team; for the majority of development environments where the team is in the same location or connected to a single server, then the regular version control systems like Subversion are good enough.
I've used Git and like it, but I actually like Subversion better. If you're using SVN you should be fine.