Mercurial popularity is stagnant

[cowwoc]

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>