Mercurial, 20 years and counting: how are we still alive and kicking? [video]

Mercurial, a distributed version control system created in 2005, celebrated its 20th anniversary at FOSDEM 2026, highlighting its continued activity and development despite widespread perceptions of its decline.

Mercurial was introduced in 2005 as an alternative to CVS and Subversion, gaining popularity for its simplicity and performance. Over the years, it fostered a dedicated community and attracted contributions from major companies. However, in the 2010s, Git’s rise led to Mercurial’s decline in popularity, and many believed the project was effectively dead.

Despite this, recent discussions at FOSDEM 2026 revealed that Mercurial remains actively maintained, with ongoing development, modern tooling, and sustained funding. The project has weathered the Git storm by focusing on its core strengths and community-driven development, rather than competing directly with Git for market share.

Why It Matters

This matters because it challenges the narrative that Mercurial is obsolete, demonstrating that open-source projects can endure long-term even after losing dominance. It also underscores the importance of community support and sustained funding in keeping niche tools alive, which can influence future development in version control and open-source software.

Background

Mercurial was once considered a leading distributed version control system alongside Git. Its decline in popularity coincided with Git’s rapid adoption in major projects like Linux kernel development and large tech companies’ workflows. Nonetheless, Mercurial maintained a loyal user base, especially in areas where its design and features remain valuable. Recent events at FOSDEM 2026 have brought renewed attention to its ongoing development and relevance.

“Despite losing the popularity race to Git, Mercurial continues to thrive through community support and modern tooling.”

— FOSDEM speaker

“Our focus has always been on building a sustainable, community-driven project that adapts to current needs.”

— Project contributor

What Remains Unclear

It remains unclear how much further Mercurial can expand its user base or whether it will regain broader popularity. The future of its development depends on community engagement, funding, and potential integration with emerging tools and workflows.

What’s Next

Next steps include continued development of modern tooling, increased outreach to potential users, and possibly new features to enhance competitiveness. Monitoring community activity and funding support will be key indicators of its ongoing viability.

Key Questions

Why did Mercurial lose popularity to Git?

Git’s adoption was driven by its scalability, performance, and backing by major tech companies, which led to widespread industry adoption in the 2010s.

Is Mercurial still used in any major projects?

Yes, Mercurial is still used in certain projects and organizations that value its features, though it is no longer mainstream.

What are the main differences between Mercurial and Git?

Mercurial offers a simpler, more consistent interface and design, whereas Git provides more flexibility and has a larger ecosystem, which contributed to its dominance.

Will Mercurial see a resurgence in popularity?

This remains uncertain; its future depends on community support, funding, and whether it can adapt to new workflows and tools.