We used it in a style where 2-3 people teams shared code to develop a feature, a person often worked on different teams at the same time. When a group finished they forwarded they changes to the 'merge master', a weekly shift of lead developers of the company. After a code review the code reached our main repository or landed back for a review. Sometimes weeks of development arrived to the main tree in a safe way with full revision history. This kind of development method was unheard before, the style change improved code quality and reduced conflicts.
My favorite story when we worked with a college thousands of kilometers away till the last minute to demonstrate a key feature to a customer at a trade show, exchanging revisions by emails, delivered on a USB stick. That's a real technology start-up way to handle development. I wrote and debug a lot of code to that company but my biggest impact was to introduce mercurial to the team.
The main advantage I can think of is that git makes it much easier to try out crazy and potentially embarrassing ideas. If you want to do this in svn, you create a branch, which exists on the server, which is visible to everyone else (though I guess many won't have it checked out). And when you commit, you need to be online, unless you've got something like svk.
In git, you just create a local branch, try it out, and see if you like the results. If you do, you can have a buddy pull your new branch and see if he likes them, and if everything's good, merge it into master. If you don't, just delete the local branch and nobody's the wiser. Also makes for really quick commits while you're trying things out.
