Most game devs -- I'd say even most devs in grown-up, professional shops -- use p4.
Most game devs -- I'd say even most devs in grown-up, professional shops -- use p4.
Hence why I said "realistically, perforce or other solutions appear to be even more popular among that particular developer segment." My comment you quoted was comparing the popularity of Mercurial to Git, not p4.Also, I'd disagree with your assertion regarding "most devs in grown-up, professional shops". Microsoft's SourceSafe has a large following among the corporate world. And many of the largest tech companies I'm aware of don't use p4 primarily; they use git, mercurial, svn, cvs, SourceSafe, home-grown solutions, etc.
Microsoft use TFS heavily [1].
Right now I imagine most MS projects are TFS but it doesn't appear to be mandated. Maybe for the big, internal-only stuff. ASP.NET is hosted on CodePlex as a Git repo [2] and MEF is Hg [3].
They've just added Git support to TFS and that probably means a lot of MS projects will migrate to Git over time.
[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/visualstudioalm/archive/2013/08/20/t...
Mercurial remains a better choice for a few use cases where git simply falls flat.
Among game developers, in particular, because of their need to have revision control for large assets, Mercurial seems to be more popular than git due to the large files extension.
And realistically, perforce or other solutions appear to be even more popular among that particular developer segment.
Personally, I use Mercurial wherever possible, but that's not because I believe Mercurial to be technically superior, it's just because I hate git's UI.
Perhaps among the general FOSS community git is more popular, but both git and Mercurial have yet to met the needs of many developers.