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

51–60 of 183 posts

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#51

Post by ericb »

burgerbrain wrote: post #35
eropple wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? They're quite snappy with the support in my experience, and handled the firesheep situation much better than most companies.

Not the OP, but I sent a friendly note asking a question that was perhaps a bit dumb--just asking to clarify what one "collaborator" meant to them. The response I got back was a bit rude.

Keep in mind my email said I was choosing a subscription plan. As someone who has done support, being rude to people about to purchase your service is even dumber than the question I asked...

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#52

Post by skrebbel »

ergo14 wrote: post #19
krobertson wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. There is no need for them to, they aren't hurting or struggling. Running businesses with "lets offer more for free" and "ohh crap, they offer more for free, lets lower our price" is a race to the bottom. It is actually moves like these that make me question Bitbucket more. How viable is the service long term? Do I want to trust all my own code to them?

You sound like an apple customer, you get more for same price and consider this a bad thing... Pigs indeed fly. It doesn't cost them a lot more in infrastructure to provide alternate dvcs - so your point seems to be completly invalid. More and more I'm starting to think that git is some kind of religion. We benefit from competition between those 2 platforms and in the end this is what should count the most for us - c…

It's amazing that your comment got thumbed down, not up. All points seem perfecly valid, so it really must be the "Apple customer" reference that killed it. Sad.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#53

Post by eropple »

xpaulbettsx wrote: post #48
eropple wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Your question is difficult to answer in the light in which you intended it, because it doesn't really apply to me. I am not so invested in my source control system to say it "rocks". It works for my purposes and maps nicely to my view of how to handle source code--it's less that Mercurial is awesome, it's that I find Git unpleasant to work with.

I find Git over-engineered toward the wrong goals; while I don't doubt the development credentials of the Git developers, I think that too little time has been put into making developers' lives easier. Linus has said previously that speed was a priority for him, and that's great--for kernel sources, I'd definitely put a premium on speed. It appears, however, to come at a cost: Git has long struck me as extremely user-hostile. The documentation may have improved as of late (I haven't checked) but it was absolutely atrocious for a very long time. I find its interface unintuitive and nondiscoverable (and here hg-git could help, were it not for the cognitive dissonance of dealing with one against the other). And its Windows support, even today, is unacceptably poor given that I spend about 40% of my time working there.

hg-git addresses some of the more cosmetic issues noted above that I could, if so inclined, deal with myself, but it doesn't really address deeper concerns I have with Git itself. There are also issues of philosophy involved--Git requires you to accept certain behaviors and the cultural encouragement of same, e.g. rewritable history, of which I'm very much not a fan. (You can rewrite a Mercurial history as well, but it requires going out of your way to do so and is not culturally accepted. "Rebase" exists, via extensions, but nobody uses it. And I much prefer it that way.)

To me, Mercurial feels much more like its developers spent a bit more time thinking--looking at how a wider set of developers work, and building something that's comfortable to more people in less time. Git feels like its developers asked no questions at all and started hammering out what made sense to them. Which is fine when it maps to the way you think and the way you work, but it doesn't map to either for me.

(I also tend to think that Git wouldn't be nearly as popular had it not been reflexively adopted by everyone and their brother because of Github--this isn't "waah, my tool of choice isn't popular!", but more of a simple observation. I think it succeeds more in spite of itself than anything.)

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#54

Post by grandalf »

johnthedebs wrote: post #9

This is great news, very exciting for people who need a nice place to stash all their private git repos but didn't want to upgrade their GitHub plans for not-that-important projects. Very interesting that they've decided to compete directly too. I wonder if/how GitHub will respond. I strongly prefer their UI and already have a paid plan, but I find myself shuffling repos within the confines of that plan rather than s…

we'll see how GH responds in the face of competition like this. Now I no longer need to go beyond the $7/month github plan.

I could see GH creating an "unlimited" account for $20/month that allows up to 3mb of files and unlimited repos.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#55

Post by eropple »

ericb wrote: post #51
burgerbrain wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm emphatically not a fan of the Github guys (who seem rather unprofessional)" How so? They're quite snappy with the support in my experience, and handled the firesheep situation much better than most companies.

Not the OP, but I sent a friendly note asking a question that was perhaps a bit dumb--just asking to clarify what one "collaborator" meant to them. The response I got back was a bit rude. Keep in mind my email said I was choosing a subscription plan . As someone who has done support, being rude to people about to purchase your service is even dumber than the question I asked...

I encountered something similar as well with their subscription plans. This was before a friend pointed me to Bitbucket, at which I've been very happy since.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#56

Post by shazow »

ashleyw wrote: post #32
tomblomfield wrote: post #20

I looked at this and thought "this is like Github, but not as good" If you're even semi-serious about development, paying $7/month is nothing for the value they provide.

Any semi-serious developer is going to use up the 5 private repos really quickly. 20 repos ($22/mo) is easily achievable for anyone who likes side-projects, and after that, larger plans are only "available on request". I wouldn't expect GitHub to compete directly with BitBucket's pricing, but doubling the amount of private repos allowed wouldn't hurt.

Many serious developers opt to keep as much of their source open as they can. It's not uncommon to find dozens of public side projects in the repository list of Github users. Occasionally someone will stumble on something interesting and collaborators will sprout. This is far less common on Bitbucket.

Github's pricing policy seems to strongly encourage community and collaboration, and it works wonders.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#57

Post by adambyrtek »

akx wrote: post #36
bitsweet wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitbucket is funded by Atlassian - their other products have a huge install base at enterprises across the world. Atlassian could probably run Bitbucket at a loss as marketing if they wanted to

And if my hunch is right, that's what they do right now.

Why? They still charge per user, and multi-user private account is what companies look for. Really, I don't believe that GitHub relies on profit from personal side projects. It's also companies they are after.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#58

Post by aiiie »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #47

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....

When we were prototyping Git support, one of the first things we investigated was having automatic conversion between Hg and Git on the server. We weren't able to get the performance to a level where responsiveness would be acceptable, and maintaining consistency between the two repos was complex.

It's something we might revisit in the distant future. As a middle ground, I've been thinking of implementing support for multiple SCMs in a single repository with the conversion/syncing process left up to the user. But that'll probably take more than a couple of 20% days to bang out. :)

If you're interested, I have some patches against hg-git that make it easier to take an existing Hg repo and convert it to Git (as opposed to the other way around). I haven't had a chance to prepare them to go upstream yet, but my repo's here: [link redacted]

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#60

Post by jayp »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #47

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....

They have not implemented seamless conversion from hg repos to git repos. However, there exist tools to do that: http://hedonismbot.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/hg-fast-export-c...
Post reply on HN