3 ms·
That's quite a strong statement. Mercurial is less popular, but why would it not be relevant? There are great tools for it, great websites, and it's being very
by TillE 13y ago
That's quite a strong statement. Mercurial is less popular, but why would it not be relevant? There are great tools for it, great websites, and it's being very actively developed. Plenty of open source projects use it, and there's little downside to choosing it for your own projects.
Mercurial won't take over the world, and it won't even reach the adoption level of Git, but that doesn't strike me as particularly terrible in any tangible way.
- emn13 13y agoWell, I don't think the VCS matters as much as the community does. And even if hg were clearly better (and git still does have some virtues, so it's not all that cut and dried), then running an open-source project that's not easily open to git users may be worse than missing a VCS with some cool features. And then there's network effects - it's popular, so it gets built into things like ruby's bundler and now even visual studio. Hg may be nice, but that's an uphill battle, especially over something that's perhaps not even all that important (i.e. even using SVN isn't a development death-knell or anything).
- yapcguy 13y agoUbuntu uses Bazaar. Some folk use Darcs. As a developer I don't really care what VCS a project uses, although better tooling does help.