BzrVsMercurial, choosing between the two

[Eugene Wee]

Hi,

> I haven't read much of the thread or thought about this much. I will say
> that I think bzr and hg are both good choices. If more of your project's
> contributors are experienced with hg, it might be better to go with it.

Pragmatically, I agree. Goffredo Baroncelli CCed to this mailing list 
his reply to a blogger, Dave Dribin, who chose Mercurial over Bazaar and 
Git (http://www.dribin.org/dave/blog/archives/2007/12/28/dvcs/). Dave 
Dribin stated that:
"The main weakness of Bazaar for me is that it's even less popular than 
Mercurial. There's something to be said about using a tool that other 
people know, especially when the whole point of a DVCS is to get 
collaboration."

This was reiterated on his next entry:
"As I mentioned in my previous article, the main strike against Bazaar 
is its smaller market share. DVCSs are still currently fringe enough 
that I don’t want to be using the fringe of the fringe."

The problem is that if we go by this reasoning alone, Bazaar is dead, 
since this is a situation where a big user base gets bigger and a small 
user base gets smaller, or at least does not grow.

I think that to put this into perspective, Mercurial and Bazaar are 
different, but they are alike in ways (e.g., similiar command set and 
basic methods by which a user uses version control) that may ease 
transition from being a user of one to a user of the other.

Regards,
Eugene Wee