Mercurial popularity is stagnant
cowwoc
cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org
Wed Jul 2 02:34:21 UTC 2014
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.
As far as I'm concerned, Mercurial is being held back by two major problems:
1. Ease of deployment: The lack of a credible Github competitor (no,
Bitbucket doesn't count for the aforementioned reasons)
2. Feature parity: The lack of a feature equivalent to Git branches.
Mercurial bookmarks were supposed to be that, but they are not. Why?
http://www.kevinberridge.com/2012/05/hg-bookmarks-made-me-sad.html
Ironically, the reason I chose Mercurial over Git many years ago was
precisely because of #1. At the time, Mercurial was easier to deploy and
had better integration than Git did. Now, the tables have turned. I
think improving Mercurial in this space would go a long way.
Gili
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20140701/f0fe5ac0/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Mercurial
mailing list