3 ms·

Bitbucket used to provide free (and pretty good) Mercurial hosting.

• oblio 5y ago
  Bitbucket had a much crappier UI.
  • zabzonk 5y ago
    Actually, one of the reasons I preferred hg to git is that Windows explorer GUI integration back then was far superior to gits, which was buggy as hell.
    • ivanbakel 5y ago
      This doesn't seem relevant to the comment you're replying to. Bitbucket's web UI sucks, which is why it didn't have the effect on Mercurial that Github had on git. Having used Bitbucket and GitHub, I think GH is much nicer - both in the sense of basic stuff like page loads being faster, and in terms of features. And since it's the main tool that everyone on the development team spends their time on for communication & collaboration, those things really matter.
      • mixmastamyk 5y ago
        Also, remember to compare the sites ten years ago rather than today.