Hacker News Reader

It's because mercurial is legacy, like darcs, bzr, monotone, and the other zoo of "git-alikes" that were big in 2008. Now it's just like MacOS Classic in 2000: there are a few die-hard zealots who claim that the interface is better in some indescribable way, and everyone else has moved on.

View on HN

Does this look like the commit log of a legacy product?

https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg/

Mercurial is very important for Facebook, Mozilla, Google, and others. The disparaging "legacy" monicker might be a good way to feel justified to not have to learn about it, but it's not dying software that is no longer getting updates.

Speaking as someone that works with Mercurial on daily basis, and also makes/sells software that supports Mercurial. I can tell you it's far from beeing legacy.

Some people work with COBOL on a daily basis. It's still antiquated.

What determines if a technology is considered legacy is not if there exists someone out there using it, but rather whether there are people actively adopting it at present. In this regard, Mercurial has slowed down and Git has clearly won the game.

There are companies adopting mercurial as they VCS of choice, either by moving out of svn, or choosing a new VCS

Reply on news.ycombinator.com