5 ms·

If HG truly shines I don’t know why people would choose Git over it. Even if Github was famous, its not like iOS came first so Android never picked up? The mill

If HG truly shines I don’t know why people would choose Git over it. Even if Github was famous, its not like iOS came first so Android never picked up? The million factors which you mention might be the reasons you don’t know why people chose git over Hg. If anything you have come up with a vague claim mentioning HG is better on a git thread, without any explanation or feature comparison.

kasabali 5y ago
> If anything you have come up with a vague claim mentioning HG is better on a git thread No, I didn't. Can you please point out to us where I did that? > If HG truly shines I don’t know why people would choose Git over it Git had a head start because Torvalds invented it and it became the SCM of Linux kernel, then other free software developers on linux ecosystem followed that (GNOME etc.). Github became hip and took of among open source developers few years after that. Rest is network effect. > yet bitbucket based on Hg didn’t take off Because bitbucket UI was more clunky and corparate-y looking compared to Github. Is it really surprising Github was more popular among Silicon Valley crowd? That's totally unrelated to it using hg instead of git.
- anaganisk 5y ago
  My apologies, I have mixed up your comment with parent comment. But since you joined the conversation. Like I said, if Hg really shines in what it does, there is no reason why it would’ve not become a viable alternative. Git has its pros and cons like Hg but it managed to outshine whatever benefits hg offered. Yes bitbucket and Github are related because, bitbucket was one of the main companies to offer it, which sucked, in turn dropped Hg adoption. How many people do you think work on Linux kernel, for it to drive git adoption? There are 10000x more php developers than Linux kernel developers. If Hg was able to entice them, it would’ve been different may be, which it couldn’t. But I agree with your point git was seen more favourable for open-source due to Github.
  - kasabali 5y ago
    We're talking past each other, I don't think we'll reach anywhere. You say hg sucked thus bitbucket dropped it. I say bitbucket sucked, regardless of hg, thus nobody adopted bitbucket, went with Github instead, indirectly adopting git. > How many people do you think work on Linux kernel, for it to drive git adoption? There are 10000x more php developers than Linux kernel developers. If Hg was able to entice them, it would’ve been different may be, which it couldn’t. If hg would be able to entice them, they'd be stuck with using subpar hosts like bitbucket, or hosting repos themselves (and having to figure out different solutions to other features github offered, like bug reports). Which is actually what a lot of large open source projects did in late 2000's/early 2010's, but even those eventually moved to Github because of network effect. (See for example discussions for Python project moving to Github)

kasabali 5y ago

> If anything you have come up with a vague claim mentioning HG is better on a git thread No, I didn't. Can you please point out to us where I did that? > If HG truly shines I don’t know why people would choose Git over it Git had a head start because Torvalds invented it and it became the SCM of Linux kernel, then other free software developers on linux ecosystem followed that (GNOME etc.). Github became hip and took of among open source developers few years after that. Rest is network effect. > yet bitbucket based on Hg didn’t take off Because bitbucket UI was more clunky and corparate-y looking compared to Github. Is it really surprising Github was more popular among Silicon Valley crowd? That's totally unrelated to it using hg instead of git.

anaganisk 5y ago
My apologies, I have mixed up your comment with parent comment. But since you joined the conversation. Like I said, if Hg really shines in what it does, there is no reason why it would’ve not become a viable alternative. Git has its pros and cons like Hg but it managed to outshine whatever benefits hg offered. Yes bitbucket and Github are related because, bitbucket was one of the main companies to offer it, which sucked, in turn dropped Hg adoption. How many people do you think work on Linux kernel, for it to drive git adoption? There are 10000x more php developers than Linux kernel developers. If Hg was able to entice them, it would’ve been different may be, which it couldn’t. But I agree with your point git was seen more favourable for open-source due to Github.
- kasabali 5y ago
  We're talking past each other, I don't think we'll reach anywhere. You say hg sucked thus bitbucket dropped it. I say bitbucket sucked, regardless of hg, thus nobody adopted bitbucket, went with Github instead, indirectly adopting git. > How many people do you think work on Linux kernel, for it to drive git adoption? There are 10000x more php developers than Linux kernel developers. If Hg was able to entice them, it would’ve been different may be, which it couldn’t. If hg would be able to entice them, they'd be stuck with using subpar hosts like bitbucket, or hosting repos themselves (and having to figure out different solutions to other features github offered, like bug reports). Which is actually what a lot of large open source projects did in late 2000's/early 2010's, but even those eventually moved to Github because of network effect. (See for example discussions for Python project moving to Github)