Mercurial popularity is stagnant

Tue Aug 19 13:56:58 UTC 2014

Hi Boggess,

I was basing this on: 
http://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=git%2C%20github&cmpt=q

Maybe it's a coincidence but the first real spike for Git comes shortly 
after the first uptick for Github. Though (playing devil's advocate) 
maybe it's the opposite is true.

Personally speaking, the main reason I avoided Git in the past was due 
to its syntax and horrible Windows integration. I tried Git on and off 
for years but never really picked it up (by contrast, I was using 
Mercurial fairly regularly).

Two things triggered me using Git on a regular basis: Github and 
Sourcetree, because they abstracted away all the ugly bits that kept me 
from using it.

I find TortoiseHg even better than Sourcetree, but there is no answer to 
Github. I think Atlassian Stash and Bitbucket could be an excellent 
answer to Github but of course the solution doesn't have to come from 
Atlassian. There are plenty of 3rd party products, but none of them are 
close to what exists for Git: http://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/4371

Gili

On 19/08/2014 8:56 AM, BOGGESS Rod CORE wrote:
> Just as a moot discussion; that is, as a thought experiment which completely ignores the onerous reality of how; do we really think that the lack of a great web hosting is the driver? I get that a great web hosting service lowers the barrier to adaption, but I don't see it as the driver. Git has must-have FOS software driving it, and then, in spite of cryptic syntax and design criteria that may be questionable in some scenarios, but excellent for its design case, it has some great web-hosting that significantly lowers the barriers created by the odd syntax. Folks deep in FOS world must learn Git; folks who must use Git find that Atlassian's hosting service makes it feasible for other projects, and since they've had to learn and familiarize already --.
>
> The must-have part is what would drive a number of folks to use Git even when it was mind-warping. I think if Hg is to take root, it needs must-have software that forces people to use it even when reluctant. If that sounds right, how do we get that? Barring that, what Git-killer feature can pull folks in? And when I ask that last question, bear in mind that Git has some top-notch developers capable of rapidly expanding its feature set, but that are mostly focused on the single-use case (kernel).  Honestly, I'm not hopeful. Then again, I think Hg is a great product even if no one uses it but me.
>
>
>
> Tenova: advanced technologies for the metals and mining industries
> Visit our website at www.tenova.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Confidentiality Notice : This message, together with its attachments, contains strictly confidential information and is intended only for the addressee identified above,who is the sole party authorized to use
>   and copy it and, assuming any related liability , to forward it to others. Anyone receiving this message by mistake or reading it without authorization is hereby notified that storage, reproduction, disclosure or distribution of the message to persons other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. They are asked to return the message immediately to the sender and to erase the original message received.
> Thank you.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mercurial-bounces at selenic.com [mailto:mercurial-bounces at selenic.com] On Behalf Of cowwoc
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:26 AM
> To: Augie Fackler
> Cc: mercurial at selenic.com
> Subject: Re: Mercurial popularity is stagnant
>
> Yet another stake in Mercurial's heart:
> http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2013/12/19/dvcs-and-git-2013/
>
> Mercurial support is now the #1 most voted feature request in Atlassian Stash but they have repeatedly stated they do not plan to add support in the foreseeable future: https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/STASH-2469
>
> Some are hinting that these trends are deterring them from adding support. According to the first link, Mercurial saw 1.41% increased adoption across 3 years, while Git saw a 27.09% increase. That's a huge difference. I'll repeat my question: what can we do to turn this around?
> I'm not sure I buy the argument that blogging about Mercurial will close the gap.
>
> Gili
>
> On 01/07/2014 1:36 PM, Augie Fackler wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:35 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'd like to bring your attention to:
>>> http://www.google.ca/trends/explore?hl=en-US&q=mercurial,+git,+github
>>> ,+bitbucket&cmpt=q&content=1
>>>
>>> It seems to me that GitHub is directly responsible for Git's
>>> popularity skyrocketing in 2009. By comparison, Mercurial's
>>> popularity seems to be stagnant for a while. Bitbucket initially did
>>> a decent job, but ever since they got bought out by Atlassian all
>>> public announcements emphasize Git support and don't mention Mercurial at all.
>>>
>>> Case in point:
>>> http://blog.bitbucket.org/2012/12/10/feature-branches-just-got-better
>>> /
>>>
>>> How do we go about reversing this trend?
>> I think one thing that would help would be users blogging more about their workflows and how hg makes them productive. I keep meaning to do this, but I have too many things pulling at my attention to ever manage to get started.
>>
>>> Gili
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://mercurial.808500.n3.nabble.com/Mercurial-popularity-is-stagnan
>>> t-tp4011549.html Sent from the General mailing list archive at
>>> Nabble.com.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mercurial mailing list
>>> Mercurial at selenic.com
>>> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial