Mercurial popularity is stagnant

[cowwoc]

Augie,

Perhaps it would help if we could streamline the contribution process...?

Right now the main hg repository is http://selenic.com/repo/hg. As far 
as I can tell, there is no "pull request" process so contributing could 
certainly be made easier. I don't think this is *the* answer for fixing 
Mercurial's popularity but faster growth would certainly help us catch 
up on any missing features (which, in my opinion, is half the problem).

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-stagnant-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