The decision on choice of Control Version System should not be affected by how it could impact end-user experience, because CVS is a developers' thing. In my opinion, end-users should not even bother about repositories; rAthena should make releases on regular basis for all folks that won't ever look into source code. For everybody else, who are proficient enough to maintain own SVN repos or make source code modifications, switching to another CVS should not be too steep learning curve anyway.
Having that in mind, from what I've read about Git (never used it though) it's far superior when it comes to performing tasks that most developers do. Take a quick read here: http://thinkvitamin....version-to-git/ and you'll know what I mean.
rAthena's development cycle needs improvements. That's a fact. Nothing has changed since we forked from eAthena, except larger and more active development team. There is still no stable branch. I suppose with Git it could be much easier than with Subversion. Git has been created with rapid branching and merging in mind. The way Subversion handles it often causes so many problems, and nobody's willing to do it (see how somehow everybody in rAthena is afraid(?) of creating additional branches). So switching to Git could make necessary workflow improvements less painful. Sure it would require ppl involved to learn Git, but if we had learned SVN in the past, we wouldn't we learn Git as well?
