Precisely. It's not unreasonable to suspect that using Distributed VCS would give GCC at least one advantage over Clang, which uses a Centralized VCS. It's a popular opinion that Clang is superior to GCC, so it would make sense that the GCC devs would want any advantage in terms of development time, and DVCS offers efficiency over CVCS. So it would be reasonable to suspect that the move might be "[due to] pressure from Clang", no?
... unless you chose to interpret that as "oh, hey, Clang is using Git, so we (GCC) should too!", which is both incorrect (Clang uses Subversion) and a fairly silly motivation regardless. If that interpretation is both incorrect and silly, why not try for a more reasonable/charitable interpretation like mine? Did it not occur to you?
I'm having a hard time understanding why jussij was down-voted... I suppose it's because people are quick to interpret others in ways that put them down, or because the down-voters lack the intelligence to make the more likely interpretation. Either way, it's disappointing.
A better argument is that the kind of people you probably want to attract to your open source project are most likely already using Git and so making them learn another DVCS to contribute to your project merely increases the barrier to entry at no benefit to the project.
... unless you chose to interpret that as "oh, hey, Clang is using Git, so we (GCC) should too!", which is both incorrect (Clang uses Subversion) and a fairly silly motivation regardless. If that interpretation is both incorrect and silly, why not try for a more reasonable/charitable interpretation like mine? Did it not occur to you?
I'm having a hard time understanding why jussij was down-voted... I suppose it's because people are quick to interpret others in ways that put them down, or because the down-voters lack the intelligence to make the more likely interpretation. Either way, it's disappointing.