Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Which brings me to the final point, which is that I think the hg team was > very active and supporting, perhaps Matt himself. That's _important_ - the > OpenSolaris people probably felt very comfortable with strong support from > the developers. It can often be _the_ best (and biggest) reason to choose > any product - regardless of anything else. I agree with this 100%. I happened to be talking with Eric about the clone breakage he was having on #git channel, and I asked him to help me diagnose the problem, which resulted in the solution we saw on the list. It turned out to be the same "1.2.2 works but 1.2.4 not" problem OpenSolaris evaluator was having. I was never contacted from somebody in the OpenSolaris circle during the whole exercise. But reading their Mercurial report apparently suggests that their hg evaluator was with direct contact with the right community from early on. I still do not even know (I've seen it once in _their_ report) who the git evaluator on their end was. I am not surprised that the difference in depth of involvements and contact between the development community and the respective evaluator contributed to the result in a major way. > Even if I think the git mailing list itself is very responsive, I think > the hg people were just more directly and actively involved. For git, they > had to come to us. That is _very_ unfair to me. It is not like git and hg both submitted proposals to be chosen by them and then we dropped the ball by not supporting them properly. They have to come to us. The time I personally became aware about their DSCM selection contest was when its initial phase was almost over; even if I were willing to help them, it was too late. And no, I do not have enough time to go fishing for such opportunities everywhere to help many random projects, either. - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html