Although I am a perfect fan and user of Mercurial I believe that this
discussion is at least OT if not futile.
If the Ruby team has chosen GIT they either had
(a) no knowledge of Mercurial and GIT just satisfied their needs
(b) known both and decided to use GIT for some (surely perfectly
reasonable, but not really interesting ) reason
and why should they care about the implementation language?
They might have chosen a different DistVCS if it were written in Ruby maybe 
I seem to remember matz talking a lot about diversity. Without being so arrogant as to speak for him, I will say that in my opinion, I think this is means people should be able to use what they want to, and I think that's a good philosophy, for the most part.
Most of the more modern VCS support import and export into svn, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if ruby is already being developed on several different VCS. This also might actually be a damn good reason for staying with svn, as it leaves people with more choices.
Is not Ruby team that choose Git over Hg over Any-Other-DVCS, but most
of the Ruby developers that works on projects (Web frameworks or
tools) decided for Git instead of anything else.
And many of those people are:
a) Hype heads
b) Working on OS X for development and BSD / Linux for production
c) Totally don't care about other platforms, maybe even actively.
Honestly I do not see any connection to Ruby in this thread.
The hype, most of the e-famous rails people are moving to git. Gits userbase starts growing even faster.
There is a connection anyway. The option for a VCS/DVCS make difficult
for users contribute back with patches to fix issues.
Mmm, this is why I'm using (with relative regularity) bazaar, hg, git, svn and cvs (you know, I think there's another one too, somewhere) 
I know there are a few porjects that still uses CVS (win32utils).
I can't say the choose for Git is alienating the contribution, but I
can say is performing a sort of discrimination and exclusion for those
users that can't integrate Git properly under their platforms or faces
restrictions regarding the tools that can install under their
environments.
Give me a shout off-list, I've been using git under msys for quite a while now, and it's ok. The daemon doesn't work, but we can't have everything
As far as alienation goes, well, the ability to just grab a .git-ball is quite useful, and it works really gracefully with a lot of the manual moving around of files that would traditionally leave a mess in other SCMs. People get used to their workflows though, preference reigns supreme under pragmatism. 
As far as the *underlying* tech goes, I'm really interested in stuff like this:
http://eigenclass.org/repos/git/gibak/
I would agree with anyone that said Gits front end is lacking, but also, I've been using it for quite a long time now, and have never really used the UI.
Things I have noticed moving from svn to git for my personal work flows is, massive increase in commit frequency, massive increase in branch and merge frequency, and the ability to truly work anywhere. This comes largely from the distributed nature however, and so isn't really that unique to git. I do have to also say though, git is damned fast if you keep it gc'd. Also, by comparison to svn, it can save you a hell of a lot of disk space - there is something to this content tracking malarky.
One final thing, dcommit <3
···
On 25 Mar 2008, at 14:39, Luis Lavena wrote:
On 25 mar, 11:15, Robert Dober <robert.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Wincent Colaiuta >> <w...@wincent.com> wrote:
Regards,
--
Luis Lavena
