Live data from Hacker News

Bitbucket now rocks Git

blog.bitbucket.org

121–130 of 183 posts

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Code, and Microsoft's CodePlex have, yes.

Oops...I mis-read your question. I thought you asked "Has any popular hosting site added mercurial support?"

At least Google Code supports git for some time already. :)

http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2011/07/announcing-git...

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#122

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…

This x100. I love GitHub's user interface but as a poor student couldn't justify them for my private projects (until I found their free student plan), so I used BitBucket.

BitBucket is very good from a pricing and support point of view (and I actually preferred Mercurial before I learnt Git properly) but it's not nearly as polished as GitHub - one thing that springs to mind (it might have been fixed) was it trying to show me a complete diff of Xcode project files when I clicked on a commit causing my browser to crash. Pretty much the main reason I switched.

I'd be really keen to see some real competition in the hosted social-coding space (it's funny, that sentence wouldn't have made sense just a few years ago), and Atlassian has the resources to do it.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#123

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.

I think an appropriate GH response would be to make a few/all personal (aka 0 collaborators) private repos free.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#124
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not poster but in a similar position myself. What about incomplete projects? Messy/hacky experiments? Completely idiotic/backwards stuff done for fun? Play-projects purely attempted for "ha I did it!"? Legally-grey (or blatantly illegal) projects? Or even school projects? I have hundreds of projects that fit in those categories, and none will ever be made publicly available. Sometimes it's just not good form to make…

> incomplete projects? It depends on what you mean by "incomplete". 50 lines of code which do almost nothing useful are probably not worth publishing. But why not publishing a half-complete project? Publishing may help you find contributors. And the early feedback helps you to decide if your project is worth more intense attention. > Messy/hacky experiments? If the code is not too bad, I publish even that stuff (as l…

On the other hand, I know about a Free Software clone of a game that used the original graphics and music. Not quite legal, but the game was very old and the right holders obviously didn't care. However, after publishing the project got a little fan base that eventually included graphic designers and musicians, who replaced the proprietary stuff step by step with their own creations. So the game changed from "legally-grey" to "solid free". This would never have been possible if the game hadn't been published.

I voted you up specifically for this bit. This is great.

What game was cloned, and what is the name of the clone?

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#126
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not poster but in a similar position myself. What about incomplete projects? Messy/hacky experiments? Completely idiotic/backwards stuff done for fun? Play-projects purely attempted for "ha I did it!"? Legally-grey (or blatantly illegal) projects? Or even school projects? I have hundreds of projects that fit in those categories, and none will ever be made publicly available. Sometimes it's just not good form to make…

> incomplete projects? It depends on what you mean by "incomplete". 50 lines of code which do almost nothing useful are probably not worth publishing. But why not publishing a half-complete project? Publishing may help you find contributors. And the early feedback helps you to decide if your project is worth more intense attention. > Messy/hacky experiments? If the code is not too bad, I publish even that stuff (as l…

what's the Free Software clone of a game?

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#128
post #69

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…

  > I'd rather lose than share them
You don't have a backup system?

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#129

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.

The difference is that BitBucket pricing is based on the number of collaborators. Their pricing page makes it seem like you even have to pay to have more than 5 collaborators on a public repo, whereas with github you don't. If I'm reading it right, then Github is still really good for Open Source projects that intend to have more than a handful of collaborators. While BitBucket is a good place to stick your private repos where you have few (or no) contributors.

Re: Bitbucket now rocks Git

#130
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not poster but in a similar position myself. What about incomplete projects? Messy/hacky experiments? Completely idiotic/backwards stuff done for fun? Play-projects purely attempted for "ha I did it!"? Legally-grey (or blatantly illegal) projects? Or even school projects? I have hundreds of projects that fit in those categories, and none will ever be made publicly available. Sometimes it's just not good form to make…

> incomplete projects? It depends on what you mean by "incomplete". 50 lines of code which do almost nothing useful are probably not worth publishing. But why not publishing a half-complete project? Publishing may help you find contributors. And the early feedback helps you to decide if your project is worth more intense attention. > Messy/hacky experiments? If the code is not too bad, I publish even that stuff (as l…

  > Depending on how much trouble this might cause, you probably shouldn't
  > upload it anywhere. Even a "private" repository on GitHub/BitBucket might
  > be too risky.
I don't think that he was talking about using BitBucket to host your malware repo. Probably more along the lines of projects that aid in the downloading of possibly copyrighted music/videos (for example). It's a legal grey area because you really don't know if your are on the wrong side of a law until a court makes a decision since there is no clear-cut way to know.

Some other examples:

1. You want to keep track of your dotfiles that you use at work. In general, this may be ok to put public, but it may contain work-specific stuff (hostnames, configurations, etc) that might get you in trouble for publishing publicly. For example, my work shell config has aliases that include connection information (sans password) to internal databases.

2. Resumes and/or cover letters. If you update your resume to say that you're looking for work, or looking for work in another area, this could give info to your current employer that you don't want to hand out. You might also want to keep your cover letters in version control if you use something like LaTeX or have specfic parts that you want to be boilerplate (e.g. description of yourself and/or your exerience). If you keep this in public, then everyone knows when/where you are applying for work, which may not be desirable even if your employer doesn't care.

Post reply on HN