Software unmaintained kills itself. I wouldn't feel all too bad if you found a different solution that fits your demand. To say one shoe fits all is silly.
I kind of killed Mercurial at Mozilla
11–20 of 250 posts
Re: I kind of killed Mercurial at Mozilla
#12Interesting, given that Google and Facebook [2], at least, eventually moved to have their repositories offered via Mercurial interface, instead of git. I also would expect that Github eventually will also offer mercurial repos. p.s. And let's not talk about abomination that is GitLFS (starting from the fact that it requires separate subcommand). [2] https://engineering.fb.com/2014/01/07/core-infra/scaling-mer...
FB/Meta replaced Mercurial with Sapling which is git-compatible: https://engineering.fb.com/2022/11/15/open-source/sapling-so... Mercurial is over.
Meta's fork/rewrite of hg, Sapling hasn't gone anywhere yet because it needs EdenFS and Mononoke that aren't yet/maybe never FOSS. It's only called hg internally because of legacy reasons but it's completely different.
Microsoft hired a git maintainer to improve large repo performance and so it's better than it was.
Re: I kind of killed Mercurial at Mozilla
#13Interesting, given that Google and Facebook [2], at least, eventually moved to have their repositories offered via Mercurial interface, instead of git. I also would expect that Github eventually will also offer mercurial repos. p.s. And let's not talk about abomination that is GitLFS (starting from the fact that it requires separate subcommand). [2] https://engineering.fb.com/2014/01/07/core-infra/scaling-mer...
> I also would expect that Github eventually will also offer mercurial repos. How come? That seems highly unlikely to me, especially when you consider that one of their larger competitors (Bitbucket) had Mercurial support for a long time and then removed it.
That change was so dumb. Mercurial support was the bit that put them as something different from github. Once they didn't have it anymore, why would anyone use them at all?
Re: I kind of killed Mercurial at Mozilla
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s 2014 vintage. Is it still true?
Yup! In fact Meta’s implementation is open sourced as Sapling SCM and includes both Mercurial and Git support[1]. Internally the main repository use Mercurial although I believe a few legacy projects still use git. [1] https://sapling-scm.com/
From the documentation, it seems like there is 0 mercurial support. It's its own separate version control system that diverged years ago. You can either use the sapling scm client or git.
Re: I kind of killed Mercurial at Mozilla
#15i kind of wonder why there has never been an "hghub", given that i've always liked hg rather than git. but i guess it is the torvalds connection?
There was bitbucket.
Re: I kind of killed Mercurial at Mozilla
#16Snitched upon by his colleague, too!
(hi glandium, sylvestre)
Re: I kind of killed Mercurial at Mozilla
#17Interesting, given that Google and Facebook [2], at least, eventually moved to have their repositories offered via Mercurial interface, instead of git. I also would expect that Github eventually will also offer mercurial repos. p.s. And let's not talk about abomination that is GitLFS (starting from the fact that it requires separate subcommand). [2] https://engineering.fb.com/2014/01/07/core-infra/scaling-mer...
FB/Meta replaced Mercurial with Sapling which is git-compatible: https://engineering.fb.com/2022/11/15/open-source/sapling-so... Mercurial is over.
Git has a lot of warts, but if I were to pick an alternative it would be Fossil, not Mercurial.
I believe Meta’s implementation includes server components (Mononoke) that were not open-sourced, or at least not buildable without closed-source dependencies. Same with Microsoft’s fork of git that relies on a virtual filesystem, but that one is open-sourced, if for Windows, not Linux.
Re: I kind of killed Mercurial at Mozilla
#18Mercurial has a quintessential "Rewrite it in rust!" page: https://wiki.mercurial-scm.org/OxidationPlan
Re: I kind of killed Mercurial at Mozilla
#19i kind of wonder why there has never been an "hghub", given that i've always liked hg rather than git. but i guess it is the torvalds connection?
I want to say bitbucket started out as this, at least my first repos there were hg.
Re: I kind of killed Mercurial at Mozilla
#20Interesting, given that Google and Facebook [2], at least, eventually moved to have their repositories offered via Mercurial interface, instead of git. I also would expect that Github eventually will also offer mercurial repos. p.s. And let's not talk about abomination that is GitLFS (starting from the fact that it requires separate subcommand). [2] https://engineering.fb.com/2014/01/07/core-infra/scaling-mer...
Bitbucket dropped Mercurial support in 2020: https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-b...
I just don't think there is good RoI for implementing Mercurial support. It really isn't about the interface (which I think most people agree hg is better than git). It's just the network effect: most projects use git so everybody learns git and they don't want to learn another tool even if it's better in some ways. At the end of the day, once you pay a higher upfront cost to learn the ~5 git invocations you need, your daily productivity between using git and hg is probably the same.
Google and Facebook is different: they have a unique use-case and scale, and massive internal tooling teams supporting their use-cases. Also, as an employee, you're probably more open to different VCS systems because if you learn hg at Facebook, you're learning it on company time whereas if you learn for an open source project, you're learning it on your time.