I listed what I suspect...
> yet popularity exists for good reason.
Are you talking about cause or effect ? Does it matter ?
> Git may or may not be perfect, depending on your point of view.
It's not, _nearly_ certainly regardless of ones PoV
> However, it's more than sufficient to do the job, and it does the job pretty darn well.
It's used a lot, and mostly works, sure.
> The other factor is that it's popular because.... it's popular.
What "other factor" is this? I was talking about what I consider weak points and poor engineering -- I'm not denying it's popular... it's practically a verb (people say "git" where "source control management", or "distributed source control management" is what they mean...)
> Yes, it's a good idea to take on git because other people use it.
Network effect, I get it...
> It's not a personal tool like your text editor where you can lord over your little realm and customize the crap out of it.
Well... not everybody is managing the Linux kernel. Not everybody is even collaborating. I use fossil[0] because I'd rather enjoy my development process. It _works_ for me. I don't care if Linus uses git, or if some high-profile codebase is managed by git.
> git is a collaboration tool.
And so are fossil and mercurial. And I've run _many_ projects under fossil, including ~20-person distributed (cross-country) projects that include development, configuration, and release management. No git necessary.
I not saying git isn't popular, or can't do its job. I'm saying: Its a bit hard to understand why git (which I suggest is unnecessarily difficult) is so popular -- I listed my two suspicions.