[fusiongyro]

The OP is simply saying that it seems odd that Microsoft would pour $20,000+ into Mercurial and then add git support to VS.

http://mercurial.selenic.com/sponsors/

I'd bet this is simply a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. I had no idea Microsoft were sponsoring Mercurial--even that seems odd, spending money on an open source competitor to a product they also make.

I think your analysis is spot on.

[smackfu]

It's not like $20k is a lot to Microsoft.

[fusiongyro]

It's more than the $0 it's given git.

[arrbee]

Actually, MS has contributed significantly more than $20k worth of developer time to git / libgit2 over the past months, all open source GPL code

[fusiongyro]

This only makes the $20K to Mercurial seem weirder, don't you think? It underscores my point that it's hard for large organizations to keep their official positions on things straight.

[ethomson]

From a bigger-picture strategic sense, the Developer Division at Microsoft is concerned about making Microsoft a good platform for developers. Fundamentally, if developers want to use Mercurial on Windows or Git on Windows or TFS on Windows, we're happy. And - increasingly - we'll donate money or even developer time to help make this a good experience.

[shanselman]

No, they knew what was happening. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/177875/why-is...