Mercurial popularity is stagnant
cowwoc
cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org
Mon Sep 1 19:43:52 UTC 2014
On 01/09/2014 2:40 AM, Chen Hendrawan [via Mercurial] wrote:
>
> 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.
> ...
> How do we go about reversing this trend?
>
> Gili
>
>
> Please apologize if this is sounds silly, but what about approaching
> GitHub, and telling them to also support Mercurial hosting? This will
> increase both GitHub and Mercurial user base. If Atlassian don't want
> to work this market, then its probably a good chance for GitHub..
>
> Regards,
> Chen
That's not a bad idea, but to clarify we're interested in a self-hosted
solution (i.e. Github Enterprise). We already have a great competitor in
the cloud-hosted space in the form of Bitbucket.
Gili
--
View this message in context: http://mercurial.808500.n3.nabble.com/Mercurial-popularity-is-stagnant-tp4011549p4013122.html
Sent from the General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20140901/1def528f/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Mercurial
mailing list