Mercurial popularity is stagnant

[Angel Ezquerra]

El 01/07/2014 21:51, "Michael McNeil Forbes" <michael.forbes at gmail.com>
escribió:
>
> 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

I may be missing something but isn't the git-annex git's equivalent to
mercurial's built in largefiles extension?

Angel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20140701/3a5d2a04/attachment-0002.html>