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.
> 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.
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.
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)
> The version control software market has evolved a lot since Bitbucket began in 2008. When we launched, centralized version control was the norm and we only supported Mercurial repos.
But Git adoption has grown over the years to become the default system, helping teams of all sizes work faster as they become more distributed.
As we surpass 10 million registered users on the platform, we're at a point in our growth where we are conducting a deeper evaluation of the market and how we can best support our users going forward.
After much consideration, we've decided to remove Mercurial support from Bitbucket Cloud and its API.
