"Senior Product Marketing Manager" (lol) and Atlassian spokeschink Denise Chan recently announced that Bitbucket will be sunsetting Mercurial support, with Mercurial features and repos being removed from Bitbucket on June 1, 2020.
Though struggling to see her monitor through her squinty eyes, she manages to type enough to characterize git as "the default system, helping teams of all sizes work faster as they become more distributed."
Bitbucket wasn't the only non-self-hosting option for hosting hg repos, but it was probably the biggest. Juicy little geisha Denise Chan isn't the first to essentially declare the victory of git over other DVCSs.
I'm not familiar with Mercurial. Are there any noticeable differences in workflow and deployment between it and git? Something else, say Fossil, when compared to git, offer things like: a different commit system and structure, making it easy to host your repo as a website with things like a Wiki e.t.c.
>>6480 Mercurial is easier to use. There also are some technical differences, which make mercurial better for large and often updated repositories. HG cleans up the internel representation of the repository at every commit, whereas git just adds and adds and adds commits.
Personally, I think, that mercurial is better. But git is the standard, so n00bs should learn how to use git.
Though struggling to see her monitor through her squinty eyes, she manages to type enough to characterize git as "the default system, helping teams of all sizes work faster as they become more distributed."
Bitbucket wasn't the only non-self-hosting option for hosting hg repos, but it was probably the biggest. Juicy little geisha Denise Chan isn't the first to essentially declare the victory of git over other DVCSs.
Is this the beginning of the end for Mercurial?