1. 9
  1.  

  2. 5

    I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand it’s nice to have competition among different DVCS, but at the same time I strongly prefer Git.

    Especially with branching, Git just works how I expect and does what I want to do. I always feel like I’m working against Mercurial.

    1. 4

      Is killing hg support on their cloud offering next?

      1. 10

        Definitely not :-) We’re actually investing in Mercurial and I’ve written a blog post on adding some new features to Bitbucket Cloud:

        https://blog.bitbucket.org/2017/03/28/edit-history-with-mercurial-evolve-beta-in-bitbucket-cloud/

        1. 3

          Welcome to lobste.rs :) You might want to request a hat.

        2. 5

          I work for Atlassian. We have developers working on Mercurial features for Bitbucket Cloud. Here’s an example from a couple of weeks ago:

          https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/6710/enable-exchange-of-obsolete-evolve-markers#comment-34961456

          1. 2

            I like how I both created that issue and then subsequently fixed it :-)

            1. 1

              Is that not a standard practice at Atlassian? If so, I’d love to hear more!

              1. 1

                He created the issue before he was hired :)

                1. 1

                  Ah! That makes sense. Thanks.

        3. 2

          That’s disappointing. But, I have been in the process of converting hg repos to git of late.

          1. 1

            I’d recommend looking at RhodeCode which supports Both HG and Mercurial (and SVN too). It’s feature ready, and mature enough to replace BB Server on premises.