I have just attended an excellent presentation on Git, delivered by Scott Chacon , a well-known Git expert. The presentation was excellent: practical recommendations, without marketing, without glossing over problems.
I have been using Subversion to store my SQL since at least 2006, probably earlier, 2005-ish. I am quite happy with it. Subversion does everything I need, does not have unnecessary features which get in my way when I need to do something real quick, and it is rock solid. Yet we always need to look for better solutions even when we like our current tools.
Git seems to have the same advantages as Subversion: it was designed by developers and for developers, it's incredibly simple, intuitive, and rock solid. Both are open source projects (not an advantage, just a fact).
Scott Chacon claims that merging and branching with Git are simpler that with Subversion, and it definitely seems worth trying it out. Yet I did not get the impression that Git is dramatically better than Subversion, so I am not going to try it out right away.