4 ms·

Mercurial had its own GitHub, though. Was it bitbucket? I don’t remember, but it had an equivalent, I think. I really think Linux and performance was a key fact

• throwaway894345 5y ago
  BitBucket eventually came to support Mercurial (in addition to Git and maybe others) but it was quite a long time after GitHub had been on the scene.
  • code_biologist 5y ago
    You misremember: The version control software market has evolved a lot since Bitbucket began in 2008. When we launched, centralized version control was the norm and we only supported Mercurial repos. https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-bitbucket https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-b... Github was launched in April 2008 [1]. Bitbucket is harder to find, but was definitely around by June 2008 [2]. Mercurial vs git was definitely the defining difference between the two initially, though the Rails ecosystem exploding onto Github made a huge adoption difference. git being faster + built in support for rebasing was big was well. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160409191635/http://www.startlin.es/timelines/github/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160409191635/http://www.startl... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20110317200833/http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/DjangoSuccessStoryBitbucket https://web.archive.org/web/20110317200833/http://code.djang...
    • throwaway894345 5y ago
      Fair enough, bitbucket hit my radar years after GitHub despite me using hg and not git.