11–20 of 34 posts
Facebook still uses Mercurial for their monorepo, as far as I know. I suspect GitHub is the reason git ultimately won. It became the easy default choice compared to the decision making involved with setting up local version control. For the record, last time I had to make that choice for my team pre-GitHub, I went with hg.
Facebook still uses Mercurial for their monorepo, as far as I know. I suspect GitHub is the reason git ultimately won. It became the easy default choice compared to the decision making involved with setting up local version control. For the record, last time I had to make that choice for my team pre-GitHub, I went with hg.
Mozilla still uses Mercurial for Firefox development [0]. They're in the process of moving to git and GitHub [1]. I don't know the status of the move, but I contributed a bit to Firefox's build system via Mercurial, and I am glad to see they're moving to git since it's the industry standard. Mercurial felt so alien when I was using it. Git has its own share of UX problems, but finding support for Mercurial was much h…
According to the top comment, hg is synced from git (rather than the other way around), and they basically finished the migration AFAIK, with some compatibility/legacy hg stuff for the time being.
Github made hosting git free with private repos
GitHub made git popular, and git made GitHub popular. So the major mercurial hosts (especially bucket) decided that it wasn't worth supporting even for their existing users. That was the mail in Mercurial's coffin. Google also decided to shut down their Google Code. Git's appeal is that it is more flexible and has every feature you might want, allowing people to do whatever they wish whether it's pretty or not. As lo…
> GitHub made git popular, and git made GitHub popular The free plan made GitHub popula, not git
In 2010 or so we tried to adopt Mercurial at the small company I worked at, but the support for Git was just so much better - even back then. Git's popularity meant that tooling, documentation, and general ease of finding people to ask questions was 100x easier with Git, so we switched. I'd imagine the same thing played out many times over.
A few FAANGs did and still use Mercurial, but they're on their own islands and don't really affect the wider tech ecosystem.
I think it is also worth pointing out: Mercurial also got bit by a lot of Anti-Python sentiment from very early on (laughingly, from some number of the same developers that didn't seem to mind how much git included a spaghetti mess of Perl and Bash scripts). The timing of the Python 2 -> 3 transition and the debacle that especially ensued as the various Linux distros made a particular dog's breakfast out of some of it also created additional or new Anti-Python sentiment among would be source control users.
GitHub made git popular, and git made GitHub popular. So the major mercurial hosts (especially bucket) decided that it wasn't worth supporting even for their existing users. That was the mail in Mercurial's coffin. Google also decided to shut down their Google Code. Git's appeal is that it is more flexible and has every feature you might want, allowing people to do whatever they wish whether it's pretty or not. As lo…
> GitHub made git popular, and git made GitHub popular The free plan made GitHub popula, not git