Nice article -- it's amazing that BitKeeper's downfall led to the growth of not just one but two amazing distributed VCSes (Git and Mercurial). I wonder if anybody has some insight (it's probably out there) on why Git and Mercurial developed as two separate projects, given their goals while starting out were mostly aligned.
I found this nugget from Wikipedia [0] quite funny.
> In an answer on the Mercurial mailing list, Olivia Mackall explained how the name "Mercurial" was chosen:
> Shortly before the first release, I read an article about the ongoing Bitkeeper debacle that described Larry McVoy as mercurial (in the sense of 'fickle'). Given the multiple meanings, the convenient abbreviation, and the good fit with my pre-existing naming scheme (see my email address), it clicked instantly. Mercurial is thus named in Larry's honor. I do not know if the same is true of Git.
