[schacon]

I'm curious why you think hg had a prominent role in this. I mean, it did pop up at almost exactly the same time for exactly the same reasons (BK, kernel drama) but I don't see evidence of Matt's benchmarks or development affecting the Git design decisions at all.

Here's one of the first threads where Matt (Olivia) introduces the project and benchmarks, but it seems like the list finds it unremarkable enough comparatively to not dig into it much:

https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504251859550.1890...

I agree that the UI is generally better and some decisions where arguably better (changeset evolution, which came much later, is pretty amazing) but I have a hard time agreeing that hg influenced Git in some fundamental way.

[schacon]

"One particular aspect that often gets left out of this creation myth, especially by the author of Github is that Mercurial had a prominent role." implies to me that Hg had a role in the creation of Git, which is why I was reacting to that.

For the deadnaming comment, it wasn't out of disrespect, but when referring to an email chain, it could otherwise be confusing if you're not aware of her transition.

I wasn't sponsoring hg-git, I wrote it. I also wrote the original Subversion bridge for GitHub, which was actually recently deprecated.

https://github.blog/news-insights/product-news/sunsetting-su...

[Epa095]

> Please don't do that. Don't deadname someone.

Is this not a case where it is justified, given that she at that time was named Matt, and it's crucial information to understand the mail thread linked to? I certainly would not understand at all without that context.

[hitekker]

Wait a second. You're saying now hg didn't influence git, but how does that fit with your previous comment?

> One particular aspect that often gets left out of this creation myth, especially by the author of Github is that Mercurial had a prominent role

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from.