9 ms·

No clue. I thought for sure Mercurial would come out ahead, it had some proponents: * Bitbucket provided unlimited free private repositories and they were exc

by libria 7y ago

No clue. I thought for sure Mercurial would come out ahead, it had some proponents: * Bitbucket provided unlimited free private repositories and they were exclusively Mercurial. Github had limits for private repos. * Google evaluated both and preferred Mercurial for code.google.com http://www.saturngod.net/articles/dvcsanalysis-support-analysis-of-git-and-mercurial-project-hosting-on-google-code/ http://www.saturngod.net/articles/dvcsanalysis-support-analy.... * Fogcreek (creators of Trello and Stackoverflow) picked Mercurial to power Kiln Early on, both tools had different advantages but they evolved toward each other making the choice more about flavor and popularity. My guess is * git was strongly associated with Linus so it won that crowd handily * Github had a stronger association with open source than Bitbucket (dunno why though). Maybe it all came down to marketing. <-- there's a startup lesson

jhasse 7y ago
> * Github had a stronger association with open source than Bitbucket (dunno why though). Maybe it all came down to marketing. <-- there's a startup lesson Maybe because it was bought by Atlassian.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  > Maybe because it was bought by Atlassian. Nope! Bitbucket had the "free private, paid public" model from the start. IIRC, Atlassian actually changed the model to allow unlimited public repositories after they purchased Bitbucket. It's possible that if BB had started with this model, they'd have been a much stronger competitor.
billfruit 7y ago
As others have mentioned before, one possible reason could be performance, git commands work near instantaneously even for very large repos, perhaps mercurial was not able to offer a similar experience.
DougBTX 7y ago
> Github had a stronger association with open source than Bitbucket (dunno why though). Early on GitHub gave out free public repositories, but Bitbucket gave our free private repositories. Working in public is aligned much more closely with open source than working in private is.

by libria 7y ago

jhasse 7y ago

> * Github had a stronger association with open source than Bitbucket (dunno why though). Maybe it all came down to marketing. <-- there's a startup lesson Maybe because it was bought by Atlassian.

chipotle_coyote 7y ago
> Maybe because it was bought by Atlassian. Nope! Bitbucket had the "free private, paid public" model from the start. IIRC, Atlassian actually changed the model to allow unlimited public repositories after they purchased Bitbucket. It's possible that if BB had started with this model, they'd have been a much stronger competitor.

billfruit 7y ago

As others have mentioned before, one possible reason could be performance, git commands work near instantaneously even for very large repos, perhaps mercurial was not able to offer a similar experience.

DougBTX 7y ago

> Github had a stronger association with open source than Bitbucket (dunno why though). Early on GitHub gave out free public repositories, but Bitbucket gave our free private repositories. Working in public is aligned much more closely with open source than working in private is.