> perhaps Bazaar has simply lost out to competing projects which have
> managed to advance further and faster. For sheer functionality, Git is
> hard to compete with. For those who are put off by the complexity of Git,
> Mercurial offers a gentler alternative without compromising on features.
> Perhaps most potential users just do not see anything in Bazaar that is
> sufficiently shiny to attract them away from the other tools.
I think this is really the crux of the matter. There was a window of a few years when a whole range of new dVCS systems were competing to replace the traditional choice of CVS (or SVN), as the defacto standard for Open Source projects. I initially rather liked Mercurial for its user friendliness and used it for a number of projects. It got to the point where even though I preferred Mercurial, so many other projects I needed to interact with were using Git that I had no choice but to learn Git.
In other words, Git has reached that critical mass where everyone in the open source world needs to learn how to use it eventually. Once you've learnt GIT, its breadth of features means there is no compelling reason to carry on using things like Mercurial, Bazaar, Subversion, or any of the others.
I see projects like OpenStack, hosted on Launchpad, casting off Bazaar and switching to using GIT (hosted on GITHub). Similarly projects hosted by Apache, using GIT for their primary dev work, even though they all "officially" using the Subversion for their master tree. Interestingly I'm finding that a very large proportion of people I interview for job positions now have GIT experience from company internal work, even if they haven't worked on Open Source projects before.
Bazaar or the other dVCS tools aren't going away, but I don't see them catching up with GIT at this point. The Debian package stats reinforce this belief