>The world was ready for a replacement for SVN the world was ready for SVN replacement before the SVN :) SVN was a band-aid, a stop-gap multi-repo measure on t

>The world was ready for a replacement for SVN the world was ready for SVN replacement before the SVN :) SVN was a band-aid, a stop-gap multi-repo measure on top of CVS. The word wanted multi-repo with good sync between repos and with local history, which is basically a repo too. Mercurial and Git were 2 of those new gen version controls. >Mercurial dates to the same era and was just about as good (arguably better) no. In particular a killer, in the sense of adoption killer, was that opinionated absence of partial transactions in Mercurial. Also branching in Mercurial wasn't that easy/cheap/natural like in Git. >tiny difference in initial adoption snowballed not really. If anything, BigCo-s were choosing mercurial over git because mercurial was more like rational/etc and appealed to those tech leads/architects/managers there. Didn't help. The git was built for developers by developers (basically Linus, forced to move on from BitKeeper, re-implemented and improved upon BitKeeper in application to his task in hand - ie. large distributed development). Git wasn't an obstacle/hurdle, it was the tool multiplying your productivity. (i worked on some pre-git source control tool in well pre-git times, and i remember us discussing, even filing some patents on and building some features in our tool similar to what later git brought to the wide world)