I find bzr and hg weird for the same reason that I never understood svn: I don't know what the hell they're doing.<p>Because git is simple in its basic structure I feel like I can understand what's going on. With bzr/hg/svn, I just have no idea what's going on, I have no idea what the tool means by words like "checkout" and "revert" and "update"; they're just too vague.
I contribute to Mixxx (<a href="http://mixxx.org" rel="nofollow">http://mixxx.org</a>) and it's our VCS. When we made the switch from SVN, we did it mainly for the very nice integration with Launchpad. Without Launchpad it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Also, it's really dog slow compared to git, especially on our very large codebase.
Beats me.<p>git has a too-steep learning curve and is just cryptic and hostile.<p>svn is too intolerant of slight mistakes, leading to difficult-to-fix situations, and merges don't work very well.<p>We tried both at my day job, and are now very happy on bzr. I also found it really nice for my single-developer spare-time project.
Because there is no GitHub for bzr. I think git gained it's popularity mainly because of GitHub and Launchpad is just not good enough.<p>P.S. Let me know if somebody's going to build a "BzrHub".
git has a specific poster child: the linux kernel<p>for a while, google used hg.<p>what high profile project uses bzr and advertises it?<p>I know the response sounds like a chicken-egg problem, and it is. To gain traction, a prolific company or project needs to use bzr.