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

81–90 of 183 posts

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#81

Post by eropple »

bad_user wrote: post #78
eropple wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think that user-friendliness must be a primary goal for a VCS, because I have to get people who aren't hardcore, balls-to-the-wall programmers to use it if I need to store their data in my tree. Hg can be picked up by those folks in short order and requires no "grokking" beyond what you can read on Spolsky's HG Init in half an hour minutes. (I have in the past worked with designers who were wholly out of their e…

On text editors -- picking up Emacs was one of the hardest thing I ever did, as I had to learn new shortcuts, I had to learn to rely on the keyboard-only and I also had to learn some ELisp just to be able to configure it. Because Emacs has some problems (it is hard to create new syntax-highlighting definitions, plugins break all the time, ELPA for package management is useless), I did try both Textmate and Sublime Te…

I am comfortable in Emacs and quite good with vim. Both do get in my way, which is why I moved to Sublime Text for text editing.

I don't live in my text editor. I spend most of my time in IntelliJ or Visual Studio. The conventions of normal text editors are largely established, and so something that runs counter to those normal conventions--an emacs or a vim--do get in my way. It is a mental gearshift to go "oh, I need to do something different now", which is a drain on my concentration and a way to get annoyed and off track because I tried to go Ctrl-A in Visual Studio and it didn't do what I wanted it to do. The productivity benefit of not having to make my brain go modal or instantly remap my mental keybindings to use emacs even outweighed losing the extensions I liked (vimwiki has been largely replaced by Evernote for me now).

And, yes, VS or IntelliJ are more important than my text editor. They win by default--"Well, use vim/emacs for everything!" is unacceptable for reasons that should be obvious. Vim and emacs are nonstandard at their own peril, and conforming to them is a worse use of my time than using something that conforms to expectations.

That you don't "get" how I can stand it is OK; the important thing is that I can.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#82

Post by bobbywilson0 »

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…

I have a similar sentiment. It doesn't feel right to pay for a private repo that you don't use any of the collaborative features.

I wonder if it makes sense for github to have a 'lite' repo that is just straight up storage, no extra features. This would be valuable to me because even though I can set up a bitbucket account and get the free private repos, I just like having everything in one place. I feel like they could even tack on a small amount to the normal subscription fee, or be able to add these on a la carte for an added monthly cost.

Don't get me wrong, I love the collaborative features and UI when I am working on the project with others, but for solo projects and old projects I don't update often this would be great.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#83

Post by petedoyle »

kellishaver wrote: post #77

Definitely going to give this a go. I have a lot of repos I'd like to keep private, but they're mostly personal projects and not worth paying more money for at GitHub. Quick question from someone new to Bitbucket: I have to authenticate every time I push to the repo. I've added my SSH key to the account, but I assume there's some additional configuration, such as how github has you add values for github.user and gith…

Make sure to use git@bitbucket.org:{username}/{reponame} instead of any https links bitbucket might give you.

I was able to upload an existing repo I had by:

1) Uploading my SSH Public Key at https://bitbucket.org/account/ (i.e. the contents of ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub) 2) Create a blank repo at Bitbucket 3) Adding a remote (git remote add bitbucket git@bitbucket.org:{username}/{reponame}.git) 4) Pushing to bitbucket (git push bitbucket master)

The most important parts were adding my SSH Public Key, and making sure to use git@bitbucket.org:{username}/{reponame}.git instead of any https links you might see on bitbucket.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#84

Post by eropple »

dasil003 wrote: post #80
eropple wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think that user-friendliness must be a primary goal for a VCS, because I have to get people who aren't hardcore, balls-to-the-wall programmers to use it if I need to store their data in my tree. Hg can be picked up by those folks in short order and requires no "grokking" beyond what you can read on Spolsky's HG Init in half an hour minutes. (I have in the past worked with designers who were wholly out of their e…

Yeah, I don't have those people in any meaningful capacity. If I did then hg would immediately be a strong contender. With regards to the philosophical difference, I see where you're coming from. This is the reason I use OS X instead of Linux for instance, it's more important for me to have a simple and usable GUI than to have ultimate control and flexibility. With text editors and version control systems I don't fee…

I never said "newbie-friendliness," though I can see how that might have been implied by my last post. I said "user-friendliness", which I think also lends itself to easier uptake from novices. Sorry for the confusion.

I know vim quite well. I still consider it onerous and unpleasant to use, and I find claims of its "power" to be overstated; I have noted before and still think to be true that editing text isn't the hard part of my job. I am definitely suspicious of claims that "it'll still be there in ten years" to be hugely important; my editor might change in ten years, but Cmd-X will still be cut and Cmd-V will still be paste, you know what I mean? The specifics of exactly what text editor I use matter so much less to me than "does it not make me hate using it?".

All of that is an aside, however, and tangential to what I was saying: for me, the visceral reaction to both vim and git is not a pleasant one; I find them to be designed for people whose mental model with regards to computer interaction is alien to mine, and despite being capable with both I find such tools uncomfortable to use. I don't consider either user-friendly (and, I think, to most people), and while I don't begrudge those who prefer those tools, life is simply too short to spend my time squeezing blood out of that particular stone.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#86

Post by pnathan »

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…

I am on bitbucket and have been for a long time. I've even bought some of your services for a project.

However, github's UI is really exceptional. Things like the slide-over really make it a smooth experience.

My feedback is that hg is solid, bitbucket guts are solid, and the UI is what's really holding you back (besides the git fanboys hollering really loudly).

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#88

Post by dewiz »

perhaps they should update the web site:

=== Thank you for signing up for Bitbucket!

You are currently on the 5 Users plan. You can always upgrade your plan to add more collaborators.

We're excited that you're getting started with Mercurial, arguably the best distributed version control system around. We've put together some great resources to get you up and running quickly so that your team can focus on building great software faster.

Cheers, The Atlassian Bitbucket team ===

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#89

Post by ElliotH »

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.

As a student I make regular use of private repos because publishing answers to marked coursework is frowned upon.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#90

Post by vog »

trebor wrote: post #69
bad_user wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 goo…

> There's a number of projects that I just won't put online because I'd rather lose than share them.

Assuming that those projects don't generate much revenue for you [1], what's the point of keeping them private?

From a political point of view, I always see such projects as a good opportunity to promote Free Software. From an economic point of view, I like to put some pressure on my competitors that way. For really valuable stuff, I'm using strict licenses like GPLv3 or AGPLv3 which ensure that sharing won't result in any disadvantage for me.

So I really wonder (as a seriously meant question!) what kind of projects you are talking about. What kind of non/small-revenue project would anyone rather lose than share?

[1] Otherwise I'd wonder why you couldn't afford paying GitHub, and also couldn't afford to switch to Mercurial for hosting them on BitBucket for free.

Post reply on HN