5 ms·

The design is very clean and appealing. I'm glad to see they're still investing significant effort. I want to see Bitbucket get more visibility and success. I

by Todd 14y ago

The design is very clean and appealing. I'm glad to see they're still investing significant effort. I want to see Bitbucket get more visibility and success. I prefer Mercurial. Among other things, it has better cross platform support. Bitbucket added Git a while ago. I wish Github would add Mercurial. Bitbucket also offers unlimited private repos. That means I only use Github for OSS projects. I use Bitbucket for everthing else. Consequently, I always recommend them to friends and companies looking for hosted repos.

merijnv 14y ago
Have you tried hg-git? I've been using it as my sole way of interacting (well, other than the web interface) with GitHub and I haven't run into any showstoppers.
- cutie 14y ago
  I tried it and it blew up, complaining about "bookmarks." Couldn't commit and/or push, never figured it out.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    I'm guessing it wanted you to enable the "bookmarks" extension: I believe hg-git maps git branches to hg bookmarks. edit: the "installing" section of http://hg-git.github.com/ http://hg-git.github.com/ confirms it.
    - noidi 14y ago
      Note that the installation instructions on that site are completely out of date. You don't need a C compiler anymore, just clone the repo and enable the extension, as described in the README: https://bitbucket.org/durin42/hg-git https://bitbucket.org/durin42/hg-git
- Todd 14y ago
  I haven't. I'll check it out. Thanks for the rec.
- reinhardt 14y ago
  I also use hg-git almost exclusively. My main issue with it is that pushing and pulling takes considerably more time, from 20-30 seconds for plain linear commits up to many minutes if there are merges involved. It's not a showstopper for me (especially considering the alternative of working with git direcrly) but I can see it being more problematic for people that tend to push on every commit. My workaround is to also keep a local git mirror (git clone --mirror) and push through it: ~/repo$ hg push ~/repo.git ~/repo$ cd ~/repo.git ~/repo.git$ git push upstream That's typically much faster than `hg push upstream`.

by Todd 14y ago

merijnv 14y ago

Have you tried hg-git? I've been using it as my sole way of interacting (well, other than the web interface) with GitHub and I haven't run into any showstoppers.

cutie 14y ago
I tried it and it blew up, complaining about "bookmarks." Couldn't commit and/or push, never figured it out.
- masklinn 14y ago
  I'm guessing it wanted you to enable the "bookmarks" extension: I believe hg-git maps git branches to hg bookmarks. edit: the "installing" section of http://hg-git.github.com/ http://hg-git.github.com/ confirms it.
  - noidi 14y ago
    Note that the installation instructions on that site are completely out of date. You don't need a C compiler anymore, just clone the repo and enable the extension, as described in the README: https://bitbucket.org/durin42/hg-git https://bitbucket.org/durin42/hg-git
Todd 14y ago
I haven't. I'll check it out. Thanks for the rec.
reinhardt 14y ago
I also use hg-git almost exclusively. My main issue with it is that pushing and pulling takes considerably more time, from 20-30 seconds for plain linear commits up to many minutes if there are merges involved. It's not a showstopper for me (especially considering the alternative of working with git direcrly) but I can see it being more problematic for people that tend to push on every commit. My workaround is to also keep a local git mirror (git clone --mirror) and push through it: ~/repo$ hg push ~/repo.git ~/repo$ cd ~/repo.git ~/repo.git$ git push upstream That's typically much faster than `hg push upstream`.