4 ms·
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
by 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 agoWe'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)