This is really surprising in a few different ways. Bitbucket started with only Mercurial support. I remember that because when I was first starting to use distributed version control, I went with...
This is really surprising in a few different ways. Bitbucket started with only Mercurial support. I remember that because when I was first starting to use distributed version control, I went with Mercurial. I was using Windows for most of my development at the time, and Mercurial was easier to use through Windows, and also had some neat other features like hg serve to be able to sync my code between my desktop and laptop easily. So I ended up originally having to use Bitbucket for some repos I wanted to host on the internet, since it was the only place with support for it.
It also seems really unnecessary for them to actually delete the Mercurial repositories as part of this, and I think there's a good chance we'll end up losing some significant historical ones where the owner just isn't paying attention, or even doesn't have access any more.
I need to log in to see if some of my old repos are still under Mercurial, but it seems like Bitbucket's broken right now (probably because of this).
It's not easy to see what VCS is a repo stored in unfortunately. There's also no automated way to migrate repositories. Seems like Atlassian has already put mercurial in bug-only maintenance mode...
It's not easy to see what VCS is a repo stored in unfortunately. There's also no automated way to migrate repositories.
Seems like Atlassian has already put mercurial in bug-only maintenance mode and is eager to pull the plug off.
Once you're logged in you can filter your own repos: https://bitbucket.org/dashboard/repositories?scm=hg https://bitbucket.org/dashboard/repositories?scm=git I agree it seems a severe disservice...
Once you're logged in you can filter your own repos:
If you are moving to sourcehut, there is a script to migrate repos: https://hg.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/invertbucket. You could probably modify this to work with most other hosts too.
If you are moving to sourcehut, there is a script to migrate repos: https://hg.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/invertbucket. You could probably modify this to work with most other hosts too.
Shame to see this disappear, and an even bigger shame that they're outright deleting Mercurial repositories. In my opinion, Mercurial is Git done right - Git is way too focused, UX-wise, on what...
Shame to see this disappear, and an even bigger shame that they're outright deleting Mercurial repositories. In my opinion, Mercurial is Git done right - Git is way too focused, UX-wise, on what you're doing to its internal data structures, rather than the task you're actually looking to accomplish. Mercurial also has several nice features that don't have any true Git counterpart - once you've used hg evolve, you'll wonder how you ever worked on chains of commits without it.
With Bitbucket not supporting Mercurial anymore, are there any hosting providers left that support it?
You may be interested to know that, originally, git was not intended to be a version-control system in its own right – the idea was that a user-friendly VCS would be developed on top of git.
Git is way too focused, UX-wise, on what you're doing to its internal data structures, rather than the task you're actually looking to accomplish.
You may be interested to know that, originally, git was not intended to be a version-control system in its own right – the idea was that a user-friendly VCS would be developed on top of git.
Interesting. Got a source on that? Git was written specifically because the Linux kernel found itself without a VCS Linus was satisfied with, and was pressed into that service almost as soon as it...
Interesting. Got a source on that? Git was written specifically because the Linux kernel found itself without a VCS Linus was satisfied with, and was pressed into that service almost as soon as it was functional. It wasn't exactly an idle academic project. At what point in this process were there any serious plans to replace working with git directly with a hypothetical system built on top of it?
Never mind merging. It's not an SCM, it's a distribution and archival
mechanism. I bet you could make a reasonable SCM on top of it, though.
Another way of looking at it is to say that it's really a content-
addressable filesystem, used to track directory trees.
I'm astonished, well not really. Git has kind of "won"; it's the version control used most, despite the fact that hg actually is better than git in a lot of ways. I think it makes sense for...
I'm astonished, well not really.
Git has kind of "won"; it's the version control used most, despite the fact that hg actually is better than git in a lot of ways. I think it makes sense for bitbucket to make a move like this, but it's a bit of a bummer for people who want to host their mercurial stuff on a "tier 1" repository provider.
It's also been a few years since I shopped for a hosted provider so when I saw the new, I thought "meh, there'd be others". Surprisingly there isn't really any that's as extensively supported as...
It's also been a few years since I shopped for a hosted provider so when I saw the new, I thought "meh, there'd be others". Surprisingly there isn't really any that's as extensively supported as BitBucket.
Sourcehut is paid and has a big "sr.ht is currently in alpha, and the quality of the service may reflect that" banner.
This is really surprising in a few different ways. Bitbucket started with only Mercurial support. I remember that because when I was first starting to use distributed version control, I went with Mercurial. I was using Windows for most of my development at the time, and Mercurial was easier to use through Windows, and also had some neat other features like
hg serveto be able to sync my code between my desktop and laptop easily. So I ended up originally having to use Bitbucket for some repos I wanted to host on the internet, since it was the only place with support for it.It also seems really unnecessary for them to actually delete the Mercurial repositories as part of this, and I think there's a good chance we'll end up losing some significant historical ones where the owner just isn't paying attention, or even doesn't have access any more.
I need to log in to see if some of my old repos are still under Mercurial, but it seems like Bitbucket's broken right now (probably because of this).
It's not easy to see what VCS is a repo stored in unfortunately. There's also no automated way to migrate repositories.
Seems like Atlassian has already put mercurial in bug-only maintenance mode and is eager to pull the plug off.
Once you're logged in you can filter your own repos:
I agree it seems a severe disservice not to provide an automatic way to switch or import into a git clone since they will eventually delete the repos.
If you are moving to sourcehut, there is a script to migrate repos: https://hg.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/invertbucket. You could probably modify this to work with most other hosts too.
This Reddit comment thread seems to indicate that Software Heritage is actively archiving from Bitbucket.
Shame to see this disappear, and an even bigger shame that they're outright deleting Mercurial repositories. In my opinion, Mercurial is Git done right - Git is way too focused, UX-wise, on what you're doing to its internal data structures, rather than the task you're actually looking to accomplish. Mercurial also has several nice features that don't have any true Git counterpart - once you've used
hg evolve, you'll wonder how you ever worked on chains of commits without it.With Bitbucket not supporting Mercurial anymore, are there any hosting providers left that support it?
You may be interested to know that, originally, git was not intended to be a version-control system in its own right – the idea was that a user-friendly VCS would be developed on top of git.
Nothing more permanent than a temporary solution.
Interesting. Got a source on that? Git was written specifically because the Linux kernel found itself without a VCS Linus was satisfied with, and was pressed into that service almost as soon as it was functional. It wasn't exactly an idle academic project. At what point in this process were there any serious plans to replace working with git directly with a hypothetical system built on top of it?
Wikipedia:
citing Linus Torvalds in an email from 2005:
I'm astonished, well not really.
Git has kind of "won"; it's the version control used most, despite the fact that hg actually is better than git in a lot of ways. I think it makes sense for bitbucket to make a move like this, but it's a bit of a bummer for people who want to host their mercurial stuff on a "tier 1" repository provider.
More headlines should have limericks.
It's also been a few years since I shopped for a hosted provider so when I saw the new, I thought "meh, there'd be others". Surprisingly there isn't really any that's as extensively supported as BitBucket.
Sourcehut is paid and has a big "sr.ht is currently in alpha, and the quality of the service may reflect that" banner.
When my time comes, I don’t wanna die. I wanna “sunset”.