Mercurial popularity is stagnant

[cowwoc]

Angel Ezquerra Moreu wrote
> Also, I don't think that mercurial's problem is a lack of contributors
> or features. IMHO if mercurial is somehow 'stagnating' it is only in
> terms of popularity, and only compared to git (probably due to
> git/github having reached a critical mass), not in terms of usefulness
> or development.

Okay, so how do we tackle that? Coming back to my original point: I don't
think there is an equivalent of Github for Mercurial. Bitbucket used to be
that, but ever since Atlassian bought it out it's all about Git support.

I feel strongly that we need a Github equivalent for Mercurial to tackle
this problem, but obviously I am powerless to build such a thing. Perhaps it
would be easier/cheaper to contribute changes to Bitbucket in exchange for
Atlassian openly promoting Mercurial again. This would allow us to fix the
problems you reported with their pull release tool, and cater it to our
needs.

Do you have any other ideas on how to tackle this problem?

Thanks,
Gili



--
View this message in context: http://mercurial.808500.n3.nabble.com/Mercurial-popularity-is-stagnant-tp4011549p4011622.html
Sent from the General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.