I am more of a bzr and svn user. Both work quite nicely for me. I haven't really used git on a project.
I know git performance is much much better than bzr but as thats not a major concern for small/medium projects, could someone who has used both bzr and git give some pointers on what one would be nicer to use than the other in areas other than performance?
From what I've seen of bzr and git, if you're competent with one, learning the other won't change your life the way a switch from cvs to bzr might. The way git figures out what you've done to a directory tree using sha1 hashes is interesting; incidentally it won't automatically add an empty directory. In bzr, you tell the VCS what you're doing so it can track operations better; git generally doesn't care about anything but the contents of the files in your tree. The staging area and in-place branching in git are pretty cool, but not essential, and I suspect they'll be picked up by bzr and hg in due course.
Mark Shuttleworth wrote a series in his blog about what he cares about in version control, and why he picked bzr for Ubuntu and Launchpad, which is an interesting counterpoint to the git lovefest we've been seeing here.
I know git performance is much much better than bzr but as thats not a major concern for small/medium projects, could someone who has used both bzr and git give some pointers on what one would be nicer to use than the other in areas other than performance?