Mercurial popularity is stagnant

[cowwoc]

I second this motion. I don't think you need a new branching option, we 
just need to make bookmarks work *exactly* like Git branches. I don't 
see the advantage of the current implementation over what Git has. Is 
the current approach working as designed or is the long-term goal to 
make it work like Git branches?

Gili

On 20/08/2014 4:50 PM, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
> Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:26:17 -0400, /cowwoc/:
>
>> 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.
>
> I believe one of the biggest selling points, preventing Git users from 
> trying out Mercurial is the handling of branches.  In a reply to the 
> "Bookmarks usage survey" thread, Martin Geisler wrote 
> <http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2014-April/046979.html>:
>
>> I agree completely -- this is also the major problem I saw when we tried
>> to use bookmarks for real in my previous job.
>>
>> Being unable to delete them in a coordinated fashion makes them more of
>> a nuisance than a help. I believe this would quickly become a #1
>> priority if bookmarks were used in main or crew, but alas... :)
>>
>> I've been using Git daily since December and the namespace it uses helps
>> a lot here...
>
> If only Mercurial bookmarks could support a mode which closely 
> resembles the behavior of Git branches, many established Git workflows 
> could be directly mapped and executed with Mercurial. There's nothing 
> wrong with the current Mercurial branching options, but providing one 
> which is missing, and which gets used mostly (and exclusively) with 
> Git is a must have in my opinion.
>