Sad to see another Mercurial holdout switch to Git.<p>The latter is ahead in network effects in a massive way - but I always preferred Mercurial. I'd have used it more but - network effects! - used git because of the projects I was working on.<p>The main thing was that the mental model of Mercurial fit in my head and the CLI was predictable and regular, whilst the tool still scaled to large codebases.<p>I find Git wants me to think about its implementation details and internal terminology at unpredictable moments during use. It still gets the job done but it feels like doing random CAPTCHAs in the midst of my work.
<p><pre><code> - We will continue to use Bugzilla, moz-phab, Phabricator, and Lando
- Although we'll be hosting the repository on GitHub, our contribution workflow will remain unchanged and we will not be accepting Pull Requests at this time
- We're still working through the planning stages, but we're expecting at least six months before the migration begins
</code></pre>
I understand that this could make sense as a first step, but I guess they could profit if they would go all-in with GitHub and use the tools it offers. Phabricator (<a href="https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/</a>) is even deprecated! And who likes to file bugs in Bugzilla?<p>As sad as it is, I see Firefox losing ground even on the developer side.
Honest non-snarky question . . . with Git becoming an industry standard, what is the case for using Mercurial? I'm asking because I've never used it or heard of anyone other than Meta doing so.
The exact Bugzilla / phab / Haskel style text files shoukd not matter - i mean it's all just tickets. what matters is the level of integration code written by devs to make their lives easier. That's what means it's hard to move.<p>it almost feels like there should be some intermediate target language - like the syntax server that syntax highlighters target (forget the name)<p>not aure <i>how</i> but it feels doable
I've been ranting in comments about clickbait headlines in recent days, so I'm going to take this moment to say that this kind of headline is absolutely perfect.<p>It's not vague, I immediately know what the article is talking about. I can accurately judge whether I am interested in further reading just from a passing glance.<p>This is how headlines should be written.
Why not remove git and focus on mercurial if there are not enough resources to support both?<p>Choosing git not only means they need to do a lot of work migrating from mercurial to git, but git is arguably a worse SCM than mercurial, or at the very least not an order of magnitude better to justify a switch.
Shame they're going to host it on GitHub, though, rather than self-hosting. I get that the network effects of GitHub will make it easier for potential contributors to get started, but... ugh, just sucks to see a successful open source project moving to a proprietary platform for their hosting.
> a significant burden on teams which are already stretched thin in parts<p>Just saying that an insignificant reduction of the C-suite's cushy bonuses and perks could very likely enable hiring quite a few smart people to reduce the burden on teams.<p>If you try to bring the Foundation vs Corporation argument, I'll say outright that this division is pretty much an exercise in creative bookkeeping invented not in the least to circumvent tax agencies and enable the top people to harvest top money while it lasts, while the line workers are being stretched thin.