From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2008-03-27T05:54:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Why git instead of mercurial?

Hi,

In message "Re: Why git instead of mercurial?"
    on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:46:00 +0900, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> writes:

|I'm curious: When there was a move away from CVS, why didn't the ruby 
|source tree go to git, instead of svn?

* git didn't work for Windows then
* tools for Subversion were more matured (at the time of migration)
* having explicit central repository is a good thing for Ruby

							matz.