Mercurial popularity is stagnant

[Michael McNeil Forbes]

On Jul 1, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:35 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>> 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.
...
> I think one thing that would help would be users blogging more about their workflows and how hg makes them productive.

Just a loosely related comment: I am seriously considering switching to
git because of git-annex. This seems like a "killer app" and I don't see
any easy way of working it into a mercurial workflow, even though I would
much rather remain with hg. (I was hoping maybe I could figure out a way
of using myrepos to manage an annex repo inside an hg repo, but this does
not seem like a good idea.)  Any suggestions or pointers to a discussion?

Our use case is managing reasonably large amounts of scientific data
generated from long simulations.  git-annex allows us to tag the data
with the source code, but keep only the bits we need on local computers
for analysis (the rest resides in long-term storage, or on the clusters
where it was generated.)

Probably not the largest portion of the stagnation though...

Michael