They have a long list of what's wrong with git.
They think git is too hard for their average customer.
They have a list of features, some will be easier when storing some metadata in the git repo.
There are certainly ways to build a compatible and good product.
It is possible and not incredibly hard.
But it is Microsoft we are talking about.
What is their track record in playing nicely with the community and supporting open standards? IE? OOXML?
They have deadlines, technical burden of millions LOC, backwards compatibility with whatever crap RCS they are currently supporting, etc.
When all these come into play, guess what will be sacrificed or postponed till next release?
I get it that it can be done right, I believe some of their engineers sincerely want and try hard to get it right. They have already made quite a few design decisions and big steps in the right direction.
But there are "real world" constraints. Management wants to report gazillion new features this quarter, Marketing wants unique value propositions, Engineering wants to hold back the release until git maintainers accept all the patches. Guess who will lose this tug of war?
straight from the horse's mouth:
> Git can be, um, esoteric. We’ve been working to
> codify the standard “best practices” for Git in the community to
> make Git approachable and easy to use
> by everyone while not sacrificing the power.
...
> give you the best all-up ALM solution
...
> work item association, change tracking, build automation,
> My work, Code review
...
> We are doing work on auditing, access control,
> high availability, online backup, etc. All the things that
> an enterprise is going to be particularly concerned about.
...
