The engineers using svn were the ones who were pushing for git - I was the one saying "we can't, because none of the conversion tools competently preserve branch history, and it's even worse on repos that started in CVS". Noone responsible for repos was pushing for git, it was end-users pulling for it (and shutting up when they learned how much work it would cause :-) That looked nothing like the drug-dealer-esque LLM push I've been seeing for the last 3 years.

(Likewise with CVS to svn: "you can rename files now? and branches aren't horrible? Great, how fast can we switch?" - no "pushing" because literally everyone could see how much better it was in very concrete cases, it was mostly just a matter of resource allocation.)

In the context of this discussion, it feels more like ipv6 :-)