[flagged]
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...
I assumed it was innocent. But the norm when naming a married woman or another person who changed their name is to call them their current name and append the clarifying information. Not vice versa. Jane Jones née Smith. Olivia (then Matt).
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.
If you can avoid the need to disambiguate, you do that too. The name really is dead. You shouldn't use it if at all possible.
> 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.
Linus never cared about hg, but lots of people that cared about git at one point would also be at least familiar with some notions from hg.