Recently there has been renewed interest in revision control systems. This is great as improvements to tools are always welcome. Git is, sadly, extremely entrenched and trying to replace will be an uphill battle. This is not due to technical but social issues. What this means is that approaches like "basically Git, but with a mathematically proven model for X" are not going to fly. While having this extra feature is great in theory, in practice is it not sufficient. The sheer amount of work needed to switch a revision control system and the ongoing burden of using a niche, nonstandard system is just too much. People will keep using their existing system.
What would it take, then, to create a system that is compelling enough to make the change? In cases like these you typically need a "big design thing" that makes the new system 10× better in some way and which the old system can not do. Alternatively the new system needs to have many small things that are better but then the total improvement needs to be something like 20× because the human brain perceives things nonlinearly. I have no idea what this "major feature" would be, but below is a list of random things that a potential replacement system should probably handle.
Better server integration
Keep rebasing as a first class feature
Make it scalable
Support file locking
- They open their proprietary tool, be it Photoshop, Final Cut Pro or whatever.
- Click on GUI item to open a new resource.
- A window pops up where they can browse the files directly from the server as if they were local.
- They open a file.
- They edit it.
- They save it. Changes go directly in trunk.
- They close the file.