I agree. I don't think your point is pedantic, although I think calling GitHub a "hosting service" downplays some major features that GitHub has. For me the big

I agree. I don't think your point is pedantic, although I think calling GitHub a "hosting service" downplays some major features that GitHub has. For me the big one is code reviews (via pull requests), but it also has GitHub Issues and GitHub Actions, amongst other things. So when someone says they're migrating "from Mercurial to GitHub", I'm left wondering: what were they previously using for code reviews, issue tracking, etc? From the article: > OpenJDK has used the Mercurial source code management solution since 2008 to store source code and conduct code reviews This doesn't make sense. Mercurial doesn't provide a code review feature, and neither does Git. So what do they currently use for code reviews? I had to dig in to the site a bit, but the workflow is described in https://openjdk.java.net/guide/codeReview.html https://openjdk.java.net/guide/codeReview.html. It looks like they use a (Korn!) shell script called "webrev" that will "generate a set of web pages to display the differences", and they then scp over the static html files to a shared public web server. Here's an example I pulled out of their Atom feed: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pbansal/8249548/webrev00/ https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pbansal/8249548/webrev00/. It's not really clear to me how they comment on each others' diffs, but I guess this must be done out-of-band (maybe via email, chat or walking over to their desk). It really feels like Git is a relatively small part of the migration. Mercurial and Git support more-or-less the same set of features, and neither one is really much better than the other (tbh I like Mercurial slightly better). Moving to GitHub as a code review tool (and possibly other things too) is going to have a much larger impact on the developer workflow than the version control tool.