Mercurial popularity is stagnant

[Simon King]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:38 PM, till plewe <till.plewe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> ...
>
>> 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.
>
> Is it a decision made by developers or managers? As far as I can tell
> there is nothing there which would tempt me to switch but it may look
> different on the managerial level. Are there any killer features which
> appeal to developers?
>
> - Till

The decision has been made by developers. Our workflow requires that
discrete pieces of work (bug fixes, new features etc.) happen outside
of the main code line, all code must be reviewed before being merged
into the main line, review comments must be stored permanently so that
we can refer back to them in the future, and so on. "hgweb and an ssh
account" don't provide that, so we'd need some other system anyway. We
investigated Review Board, RhodeCode and a couple of others, but none
of them would support our workflow as well as Stash does.

Simon