4 ms·

i kind of wonder why there has never been an "hghub", given that i've always liked hg rather than git. but i guess it is the torvalds connection?

nickcox 3y ago
There was bitbucket.
rstarast 3y ago
I want to say bitbucket started out as this, at least my first repos there were hg.
- zabzonk 3y ago
  yep, that's what i used to use, but it was shut down and i don't really know why - would it have cost so much to have kept it open? dunno - i really know nothing about the economics of keeping such things going.
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    I don't recall if this was before or after Atlassian bought Bitbucket, but they had a number of issues keeping the site running. There where so many outages, the site was frequently slow to the point of being useless. I know because we where a paying customer. I suspect that they had to few paying customers and because the service was so prone to outages they had acquired a bad reputation so they couldn't attract new customers. Maybe if Bitbucket had been a Silicon Valley company they would have had access to funding, allowing them to grow in the same way Github did. When it worked it was fine, but in the end you just got way better service and performance on Github. The current iteration of Bitbucket isn't even Bitbucket, it's Stash. That works really well to, if you like Atlassian tools.
bluGill 3y ago
Because you never wrote it. The curse of open source. By the time github came about, git already had a lot more mindshare than hg. While hg wasn't yet clearly an also ran, it was clearly the less popular solution, and many open source tools started supporting git but either not supporting hg, or if they did it was an afterthought and often the maintainers broke something hg without noticing and then releasing with broken hg support.
- zabzonk 3y ago
  maybe. at least on windows TortoiseHg was far superior to TortoiseGit. just to be clear, i have worked with both hg and git, and can get along with either, but i do prefer hg. have also written several foss tools - for example csvfix.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Don't get me wrong, there were lots of great hg tools. However the majority of tools were for git and so the few better ones for hg don't make up.
abound 3y ago
Sourcehut (sr.ht) has Mercurial support at hg.sr.ht
lern_too_spel 3y ago
That was Bitbucket. https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-bitbucket https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-b...

nickcox 3y ago

There was bitbucket.

rstarast 3y ago

I want to say bitbucket started out as this, at least my first repos there were hg.

zabzonk 3y ago
yep, that's what i used to use, but it was shut down and i don't really know why - would it have cost so much to have kept it open? dunno - i really know nothing about the economics of keeping such things going.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  I don't recall if this was before or after Atlassian bought Bitbucket, but they had a number of issues keeping the site running. There where so many outages, the site was frequently slow to the point of being useless. I know because we where a paying customer. I suspect that they had to few paying customers and because the service was so prone to outages they had acquired a bad reputation so they couldn't attract new customers. Maybe if Bitbucket had been a Silicon Valley company they would have had access to funding, allowing them to grow in the same way Github did. When it worked it was fine, but in the end you just got way better service and performance on Github. The current iteration of Bitbucket isn't even Bitbucket, it's Stash. That works really well to, if you like Atlassian tools.

bluGill 3y ago

Because you never wrote it. The curse of open source. By the time github came about, git already had a lot more mindshare than hg. While hg wasn't yet clearly an also ran, it was clearly the less popular solution, and many open source tools started supporting git but either not supporting hg, or if they did it was an afterthought and often the maintainers broke something hg without noticing and then releasing with broken hg support.

zabzonk 3y ago
maybe. at least on windows TortoiseHg was far superior to TortoiseGit. just to be clear, i have worked with both hg and git, and can get along with either, but i do prefer hg. have also written several foss tools - for example csvfix.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Don't get me wrong, there were lots of great hg tools. However the majority of tools were for git and so the few better ones for hg don't make up.

abound 3y ago

Sourcehut (sr.ht) has Mercurial support at hg.sr.ht

lern_too_spel 3y ago

That was Bitbucket. https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-bitbucket https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-b...