> It's a hyperbole, a figure of speech used to make a point. I'm pretty sure everyone on HN knows what git is used for.

I know. The hyperbole makes it sound as if gits job is actually quite simple and we could easily have a better system. But I disagree with that, I don't believe it is simple. Most other tools have and are failing still at this.

> Why would you compare it with SVN rather than other DVCS like Mercurial?

Because SVN ruled the world back then and that is what I and many other devs used. Many of us went from SVN to Git without even knowing what Mercurial was. That explains why I was (eventually) so in awe of git, had I gone from Mercurial to Git I might have lamented the loss of a more friendly system. I do actually remember doing the odd thing with mercurial and it being much smoother to work with, but then git was already becoming the dominant player.

> Many of us went from SVN to Git without even knowing what Mercurial was.

Yeah I know, that's the problem. In other words, many of us decided git is the best because many of us didn't know any better.

But it's been more than a decade, surely that's enough time to reevaluate one's position.

But, be honest, git was better than mercurial as well.

And the reason that it's better is that the support is universal (now). Even back when the battle was being actively waged between git and hg, the popularity of git made it a better choice for pretty much everyone.