I also don't think that GitHub is a universally perfect solution. It's clearly not and I never said they were.
Using GitHub's popularity as a marketing measure is also not a binary choice between not using it at all and relying on it completely.
And by the community, I do not count those not having made any contribution but complaining about what is there in the first place.
This case is about the toolchain, but the same could be set about the code. Does it has to stick to an imperative form, as it is the most common widespread and understood paradigm, or can it be functional because it fits best the original design?
As long as the API is clean and the documentation is clear, I'm fine making the little extra effort to enter the world of the author rather than him/her lowering his/her expectation about what the project, as a whole, should be.
If your biggest complaint with hg is MQ, rejoice: there are modern alternatives that make MQ almost obsolete unless your current workflow already heavily depends on MQ.