Graydon Hoare (le fondateur de monotone) vient de poster une explication: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/monotone-devel/2007-04/msg(...)
En fait il n'y a pas que des raisons techniques: il est également impliqué dans Mozilla et il n'avait donc pas trop envie de mélanger les deux (« If mtn lacks a feature, or is too slow, it's my fault and job to fix. »)
J'aime bien le paragraphe de conclusion de son message:
For whatever it's worth, I'm actually quite pleased with the result. I don't really see these systems as competing as much as co-evolving, and enabling massive increase in the rate of free software evolution. In the early 2000s, anyone I described this sort of tool to thought it was crazy and would never work. Merge *after* commit? Branches with *multiple* heads? *Content addresses* in history graphs? *No* canonical servers? Now all this is the standard, and we're quibbling over who does it fastest. Who cares? The battle is won: DVCS technology works fantastically well -- using the model we pioneered -- and free implementations of it are absorbing many major projects. That's cause for celebration.
[^] # Re: monotone
Posté par Vivi . En réponse au journal Mozilla passe à Mercurial. Évalué à 2.
En fait il n'y a pas que des raisons techniques: il est également impliqué dans Mozilla et il n'avait donc pas trop envie de mélanger les deux (« If mtn lacks a feature, or is too slow, it's my fault and job to fix. »)
J'aime bien le paragraphe de conclusion de son message: