Mercurial popularity is stagnant

[Simon King]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 4:51 PM, till plewe <till.plewe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:16 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>> Till,
>>
>> There is a price to pay for a stagnant popularity. The specific example I
>> brought up is the lack of a good Mercurial repository management platforms
>> (self-hosted, cloud-hosted, social networking, etc).
>
> OK. I may seem to be a bit dense, but for me one of the points of DVCS
> is that I do not need a "repository management platform".
> Cloning/downloading archived versions for using projects and push/pull
> permissions for development is all what should be needed. Beyond that
> you can (and I believe should) use local tools.
>
>>
>> Take a look at http://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/3506 versus
>> http://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/867
>>
>> The available options for Mercurial are substantially worse than for Git.
>> Whether you're an enterprise customer or an OSS developer, the existing
>> solutions are quite poor.
>
> Let me try again. What functionality is needed beyond what is provided
> by hgweb, or a simple unix account to which the developers have access
> via ssh?
>
> - Till
>
> PS. I am not trying to be facetious I simply have never encountered a
> situation where using such a platform would be useful or even
> advisable.

I'm the main mercurial advocate where I work, and we've been using it
happily for a couple of years now, using a home-grown server
application for repository management, code reviews and so on. But
unfortunately we're now switching to git mostly because of Atlassian
Stash - the code review tools and integration with bug tracking (Jira)
are simply better than the other options we looked at. If Stash
supported mercurial I don't think we'd be switching.

Simon