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

61–70 of 183 posts

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#61

Post by farkas »

pixeloution wrote: post #40
farkas wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(disclaimer - I'm the CEO of Atlassian) Developers are religious. Whether it is vi vs emacs, or IDEA vs Eclipse or Mac vs Linux. In September we had a huge debate internally (hundreds of comments long) on functional vs non-functional programming. We know that no-one wins in these religious debates. We've found that developers are equally religious regarding their DVCS. Most frequently it is whatever DVCS you started…

If we had to re-make the decision of what remote DVCS host to use, I'd certainly look strongly at bitbucket. We have only a small handful of developers, but many repositories (60+) all getting low traffic. We've used both Github and Beanstalkapp.com and both charge based on total repos rather then disk space or developers which, frankly, drives me a bit insane. I think both have better features then bitbucket (as far…

Just as a FYI - we don't have any disk limits (apart from fair use).

We don't want our pricing to be based on repos, or disk space, or any other limitation that is hard to predict, or encourages sub-optimal decision making to optimise cost. We think that users is the best way to price a product, and is easy to predict.

In terms of UI - there are things that bug me today, but our team is cranking along improving it.

But we have found that most of our users spend their time interacting via the command-line, and therefore we have prioritised features around stability and performance, as well as enabling Git support. Now that this is done, we'll be focusing more time on UI again.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#62

Post by varikin »

uptown wrote: post #59

Great news! Wish I'd seen it before I finally took the leap and signed up for a paid GitHub account this morning.

I agree. I just signed up for a paid account on Saturday for one project I didn't want public. Time to reassess my options.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#63

Post by sandGorgon »

brodie wrote: post #49
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 an…

Yes please - small things like the branches drop down are not very intuitive.

I think the competitive advantage for Bitbucket will come from super-enhancing features like the issue tracker. Today, I still have to run Redmine inspite of having Github issues. Give me an industrial quality issue tracker (hooks, assignee features, charting, roles and permissions).

Basically just pull Bugzilla into Bitbucket. Now, that would be a killer feature !

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#64

Post by rcthompson »

Triumvark wrote: post #43

This has probably been asked before, but is Bitbucket really unlimited? If I encrypt my drive, convert it to ASCII, and upload it, will they host it?

Good luck committing an image of your hard drive into git or hg.

Seriously, though, the limitations of git and mercurial with respect to large files probably prevent them from having to deal with this kind of thing.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#65

Post by dasil003 »

eropple wrote: post #53
xpaulbettsx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I don't think user-friendliness should be a primary goal for a version control system. The reason being that this is something we use day in and day out for years, so the importance of the learning curve is dwarfed by the power of the UI and the workflows it enables.

When I switched from svn to git (and don't take this to mean I'm comparing svn to hg, because obviously hg is in git's league, not svn's), the learning curve was steep, but after 3 months of daily use I understood git's internals and what the various commands actually do infinitely better than I did after 5 years of using svn.

In other words, I think git has an internal logic that allows it to fit into a small space in your brain once fully grokked.

As to the rebase vs merge debate, I've already written about this (http://darwinweb.net/articles/the-case-for-git-rebase), but fundamentally my argument boils down to this: Having a linear history allows me to resolve historical bugs better than a history full of merge commits. If I run a bisect on a linear history I will always narrow down a bug to a single commit instead of potentially a merge commit with hundreds of commits behind it. Now, merge commits give you more information about the history, but when topic branches proliferate that information becomes very hard to make sense of anyway. With rebased commits I can still see when they were committed, so it's not as if there is no evidence of the actual development. Being able to see the exact state a particular commit was developed in is useful, but in my experience does not offset the hassle of a very messy history in solving bugs in the current state of the code base.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#66

Post by qx24b »

shazow wrote: post #56
ashleyw wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It really depends on the type of side projects a developer does.

If it has something to do with their main business (say something to manage their server commands easily) or is integrated into another one of their tools the cost open sourcing it may not be worth it.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#68

Post by microtonal »

farkas wrote: post #61
pixeloution wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we had to re-make the decision of what remote DVCS host to use, I'd certainly look strongly at bitbucket. We have only a small handful of developers, but many repositories (60+) all getting low traffic. We've used both Github and Beanstalkapp.com and both charge based on total repos rather then disk space or developers which, frankly, drives me a bit insane. I think both have better features then bitbucket (as far…

Just as a FYI - we don't have any disk limits (apart from fair use). We don't want our pricing to be based on repos, or disk space, or any other limitation that is hard to predict, or encourages sub-optimal decision making to optimise cost. We think that users is the best way to price a product, and is easy to predict. In terms of UI - there are things that bug me today, but our team is cranking along improving it. B…

Just as a FYI - we don't have any disk limits (apart from fair use).

Let me ask you about a particular case then :). I am in a group that develops a natural language parser for Dutch. It's open source, but so far we have been hosting it in a private Subversion repository on our university servers. We do provide a read-only (somewhat hidden) git mirror of the tree, but we have considered publishing it as an public git repository, but were always worried that the repository is too large for hosting it externally.

The git repository has existed for one and a half year, and the bare repo is currently 1098 MB in size*. Would hosting such a repository on Bitbucket be considered fair-use?

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#69

Post by trebor »

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…

> 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.

Ditto. There's a number of projects that I just won't put online because I'd rather lose than share them. With Bitbucket it looks like I'll be able to stash them privately, for free.

I'm totally psyched that Bitbucket has given this good a plan as their base/free package.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#70

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN