Mozilla Abandons Mercurial

Up to now, Mozilla has been supporting the use of both Git and Mercurial DVCSes by its contributors <https://devclass.com/2023/11/07/mozilla-will-move-firefox-development-from-mercurial-to-microsofts-github/>. But no more: it is giving up on Mercurial, and making things exclusively Git-based. Furthermore, it is moving to use GitHub for hosting its repos. I can remember the discussion over which distributed VCS they should switch to about a decade ago, back when I was new to Git myself. Even then, the momentum was clearly on the side of Git. However, the Mozilla crew wanted something that would work well on Windows, not just on Linux, and back then the process-heavy execution model of Git gave poor performance on Windows. Hence they went for Mercurial. Presumably that objection no longer applies; suitable compromises have been made in the architecture of Git to cater for the platform that thinks 26 drive letters ought to be enough for anybody. (I can’t remember what Mozilla were using before that; probably Subversion.) Using GitHub, on the other hand, seems in some ways like a step backwards for distributed development. Linus Torvalds famously pilloried their lame pull-request system <https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-5654674>, which just happens to be the one feature of your GitHub repos that you cannot turn off.

Up to now, Mozilla has been supporting the use of both Git and Mercurial DVCSes by its contributors <https://devclass.com/2023/11/07/mozilla-will-move-firefox-development-from-mercurial-to-microsofts-github/>. But no more: it is giving up on Mercurial, and making things exclusively Git-based. Furthermore, it is moving to use GitHub for hosting its repos.
I can remember the discussion over which distributed VCS they should switch to about a decade ago, back when I was new to Git myself. Even then, the momentum was clearly on the side of Git. However, the Mozilla crew wanted something that would work well on Windows, not just on Linux, and back then the process-heavy execution model of Git gave poor performance on Windows. Hence they went for Mercurial. Presumably that objection no longer applies; suitable compromises have been made in the architecture of Git to cater for the platform that thinks 26 drive letters ought to be enough for anybody. (I can’t remember what Mozilla were using before that; probably Subversion.)
Yes, I used Mercurial for a number of projects back in the day and quite liked it. That was before git steamrolled everything... Mozilla used subversion in the past, from the looks of it: https://wiki.mozilla.org/SVN Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ Mobile +64 22 190 2375 https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 15:40:25 +1300, Peter Reutemann wrote:
Yes, I used Mercurial for a number of projects back in the day and quite liked it. That was before git steamrolled everything...
BitBucket started as a Mercurial-only service. Then, they also offered Git, by popular demand. And more recently, they found they could no longer make a profit from their Mercurial offering, so they shut that down. Git is a clear-cut case of a product succeeding through its merits, not because there was some big company behind it.
participants (2)
-
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
-
Peter Reutemann