I have been using Git for a while now, and have been recently asked why its merging and branching capabilities are better than those of SVN. Years ago, when I used SVN, I fo
It's important to understand the model that the Subversion merge engine uses. It's very different from Git.
Subversion supports two basic types of merges. The first is a 'sync' merge that is done to keep a development (feature/task/topic) branch up to date with trunk. The second is a 'reintegrate' merge that is used to promote finished work to the trunk. So the model is a mainline (trunk) model that supports feature branches and release branches.
An important limitation is that Subversion does not consider the full DAG when searching merge history to find the right merge base. Merging between directly related (parent-child) branches is well supported, but merges done between branches that are distant ancestors or siblings, with contributions coming in indirectly from other branches, will often give surprising results.
Subversion merge support is improving over time as you noted. It had no merge tracking at all until 1.5, made huge leaps in 1.8, and the upcoming 1.9 will improve rename/move tracking. There's also talk of 'local shelves' in the future.
(By the way, I know some of this because I attended the Subversion/Git Live conference last week and the committer who works on the merge engine gave a presentation.)
Git on the other hand has a very well respected merge engine. It can handle merges of almost any complexity. In fact its only major merge limitation is that it deduces move/renames after the fact. In very complicated refactoring situations it may not pick up everything properly.
To summarize:
Hope that helps!