So, yeah, (D)VCS choice is probably a bigger holy war than editor, and getting a project to switch is quite nontrivial. Especially a lot of the projects you'd want to switch away from some poor DVCS, because they often stick to it for some non-technical reason (eg. bzr seems to be largely a GNU thing).
This is also less about the tools themselves but the mind-share they have. FOSS projects need a steady flow of new contributors to replace old ones and to get new steam. Switching to tools that are more likely to be known by a younger generation of programmers makes this easier. This applies to the git migration as well.
texinfo is pretty nice. Many GNU projects use this for their manuals. That way you can create a printed manual, an HTML manual, and an info manual from the same source.
>You cannot even reliably generate it from in-source Emacs Lisp comments which doubles the maintenance effort for most elisp code.
Good code comments do not make a good manual. A manual needs to do much more. I don't really believe in generating docs from docstrings in source code. I am surprised that you can't bootstrap a manual with the docstrings, though. That's unfortunate. I was able to do so rather easily with Guile.
I think that this new generation of programmers (which I am included in) should learn that Markdown is inadequate for large documents.
Oh, and I am in full support of the git migration.