Mercurial popularity is stagnant

[Simon King]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:56 PM, till plewe <till.plewe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>
> Thanks.
>
> We would probably use our own scripts for demanding workflows,
> modifying the scripts and the workflow until we are sure that we have
> gotten it right. If Stash really does everything you need and will
> continue to do so then you are lucky. I have never found a perfect fit
> which could be easily adapted to changing requirements.
>
>  - Till

As I mentioned before, we used our homegrown system with mercurial for
a couple of years (based on a previous homegrown system against
Clearcase), and it served us well. However, the team is getting bigger
and people are asking for new features (such as inline code commenting
and stronger access controls, which we never bothered with before).
Although we could add those features, it would take a reasonable
amount of effort which we can't really justify when there are
off-the-shelf tools that already do pretty much everything that we
want, and much more slickly than we would ever do ourselves.

Simon