Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitbucket now rocks Git

blog.bitbucket.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 183 posts

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#41

Post by sandGorgon »

eropple wrote: post #25
LeafStorm wrote: post #4

You know, I actually expected that the opposite would happen: GitHub would start offering Mercurial hosting. Because Git isn't what attracts most people to GitHub. It's the sheer fact that GitHub is frickin' HUGE and has lots of people who will show up, fork your project, and send you a pull request. I love Bitbucket, but honestly if GitHub added Mercurial support I would probably move all the way to GitHub because o…

Because Git isn't what attracts most people to GitHub. It's the sheer fact that GitHub is frickin' HUGE and has lots of people who will show up, fork your project, and send you a pull request. I love Bitbucket, but honestly if GitHub added Mercurial support I would probably move all the way to GitHub because of the size of the community. This sums up my feelings exactly. I'm emphatically not a fan of the Github guys…

A lot of people/companies I know were using Assembla and Beanstalk.

I wonder how big a threat this is to them, rather than Github . I notice that Bitbucket hasnt integrated Issues tracker with git. Bitbucket's bug tracking was IMHO much superior to github.

Plus Bitbucket doesnt format the README markdown as nicely as Github.

EDIT: I notice that I was mistaken. you need to enable bug tracking from the admin tab.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#42

Post by bad_user »

LeafStorm wrote: post #4

You know, I actually expected that the opposite would happen: GitHub would start offering Mercurial hosting. Because Git isn't what attracts most people to GitHub. It's the sheer fact that GitHub is frickin' HUGE and has lots of people who will show up, fork your project, and send you a pull request. I love Bitbucket, but honestly if GitHub added Mercurial support I would probably move all the way to GitHub because o…

     Git isn't what attracts most people to GitHub
I disagree (partly).

GitHub is indeed a sort of social-network for developers working on open-source projects, and this makes it really attractive. Their interface is also totally kick-ass and I love them.

But for my private projects GitHub is totally useless and also expensive, which is why I have been hosting my own Git repo on an instance that I own - it's pretty easy to setup too.

I am very excited that Bitbucket is offering Git as an option, as Mercurial for me is not really compelling; not that Git is necessarily better but it's what I know and have absolutely no reason to learn yet-another-tool-that-does-the-same-thing.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#44

Post by xentronium »

eropple wrote: post #25
LeafStorm wrote: post #4

You know, I actually expected that the opposite would happen: GitHub would start offering Mercurial hosting. Because Git isn't what attracts most people to GitHub. It's the sheer fact that GitHub is frickin' HUGE and has lots of people who will show up, fork your project, and send you a pull request. I love Bitbucket, but honestly if GitHub added Mercurial support I would probably move all the way to GitHub because o…

Because Git isn't what attracts most people to GitHub. It's the sheer fact that GitHub is frickin' HUGE and has lots of people who will show up, fork your project, and send you a pull request. I love Bitbucket, but honestly if GitHub added Mercurial support I would probably move all the way to GitHub because of the size of the community. This sums up my feelings exactly. I'm emphatically not a fan of the Github guys…

> I'm emphatically not a fan of the Github guys (who seem rather unprofessional)

How so?

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#45

Post by gecko »

zbowling wrote: post #24
gecko wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll grant that only if you allow me to say that Linux runs Microsoft Office natively due to WINE.

no. That analogy doesn't fit here. A closer one would be more like Linux supporting FAT32 natively because someone took the time to write proper support for it in an system it wasn't originally designed for (and it works beautifully with almost no corner cases). It may not perform as well but I get to use what I want and still interoperate.

Fair enough; your analogy is better. But not for the reason you point out.

Because FAT32 naming conventions are radically different from Linux', and because it supports radically different directory restrictions, and because it has attributes that Linux doesn't understand, and because it doesn't support permissions, I have to always keep clearly in mind when I've mounted a FAT32 volume v. basically anything else. Yes, I can mount it, and it works just fine until it doesn't.

This is my experience with hg-git. Mercurial tags can be moved, Git tags can't be, so I need to keep that in mind. Mercurial signatures don't map to Git ones for obvious reasons or vice-versa, so I can't actually figure out whether a given release was signed by the project author. Mercurial branches lack Git analogs, so I have to remember not to use them. Mercurial bookmarks map to Git branches, so I have to be ready for bookmarks to move in odd ways as Git users work with my hg-git repository. Mercurial's multiple heads per branch have no real analog in Git (they'd be up for garbage collection). This list goes on.

When I use hg-git, I have to always keep the Git model in my head, AND keep the Mercurial model in my head, AND keep in mind how those two models interact. This isn't fun, and it's not anything remotely close to transparent. It's amazingly impressive how well hg-git works, but claiming that GitHub supports Mercurial due to hg-git is horribly misleading.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#47

Post by MatthewPhillips »

I just checked and none of my existing Bitbucket repos have a Git link, nor can I find a way to add Git support from the Admin screen. However when I go to add a new repo Git is an option.

Please tell me (frown face) that this feature isn't just for new repos....

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#48

Post by xpaulbettsx »

eropple wrote: post #28
zbowling wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no. That analogy doesn't fit here. A closer one would be more like Linux supporting FAT32 natively because someone took the time to write proper support for it in an system it wasn't originally designed for (and it works beautifully with almost no corner cases). It may not perform as well but I get to use what I want and still interoperate.

The hg-git abstraction is not very solid. You end up having to "think git" rather than "think hg" and my beef with git isn't in the syntax, it's in git. If I'm going to use hg-git, I might as well use git itself. I don't want to use git; I want to use hg.

Why? As a Git fan, someone's perspective on why they prefer Mercurial would be really interesting. What rocks about Mercurial?

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#49

Post by brodie »

mushishi wrote: post #3

As a daily Bitbucket user, I appreciate their efforts. But unfortunately I don't see improvement on navigation. It's quite painful to browse source code via web. If I just want to quickly look at someone's repository, I will make a lot of browsing, and it's just way too slow. Compare it to Github's slick UI: https://github.com/blog/760-the-tree-slider But I am optimistic Bitbucket will change it for the better.

(I'm a Bitbucket developer.)

I completely agree that UI's something we need to improve on. I do think we've been making progress: We recently redesigned the commit history page, we've cleaned up the repository and account admin pages, and we've been updating the whole site with a more streamlined look and feel.

One of the next big things on our roadmap is redoing the repository header (that thing with all the tabs and buttons). And personally, I'd like to see us standardize on a single repo landing page with everything you need, but that's a little controversial at the moment. :)

We're huge fans of defunkt's pjax library, so expect to see it used more on the site in the future - including in the source browser.

Oh, and we're currently looking for a designer! http://www.atlassian.com/about/careers/listing.jsp?jobID=143

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#50

Post by skrebbel »

bad_user wrote: post #42
LeafStorm wrote: post #4

You know, I actually expected that the opposite would happen: GitHub would start offering Mercurial hosting. Because Git isn't what attracts most people to GitHub. It's the sheer fact that GitHub is frickin' HUGE and has lots of people who will show up, fork your project, and send you a pull request. I love Bitbucket, but honestly if GitHub added Mercurial support I would probably move all the way to GitHub because o…

Git isn't what attracts most people to GitHub I disagree (partly). GitHub is indeed a sort of social-network for developers working on open-source projects, and this makes it really attractive. Their interface is also totally kick-ass and I love them. But for my private projects GitHub is totally useless and also expensive, which is why I have been hosting my own Git repo on an instance that I own - it's pretty easy…

Opposite for me. I never really knew whether to choose Mercurial, Bzr or Git and ended up using Git for everything because of Github.
Post reply on HN