1. 11
  1.  

  2. 2

    Annoyed that they don’t suggest a way to achieve this view with git alone.

    1. 3

      Won’t just git fetch && git diff origin/master do? It won’t give the conflict markers, but you can get those by just attempting to merge master into your branch.

      As an aside, when I saw this view in stash at work I ended up wasting an hour or more trying to figure out 1) how the hell is ended up committing conflict markers (I can see them right here in my diff!) and how the hell the build passed with them there. I was not pleased, though I have since come to appreciate this view. I just wish they would offer rebase instead of mergeā€¦

      1. 2

        There is a discussion in the comments about achieving a similar view with git alone: https://developer.atlassian.com/blog/2015/01/a-better-pull-request/#comment-1811819137

      2. 2

        Sigh, and nothing for Mercurial.

        Atlassian seems really determined to kill off Mercurial, which was Bitbucket’s original sole focus. :-(

        1. 1

          I would imagine with git’s popularity they view it as a support headache and money sync.

          1. 1

            Heh, “money sync”. Cute typo. :-)

            I don’t know. At the time when Atlassian bought Bitbucket, git and hg were not as disparate in popularity. I think they doomed themselves to playing catchup with Github when they introduced git support instead of working on improving Mercurial support. Hg has some pretty cool features that would really make a huge difference, far better pull requests than what this article is talking about. Evolve is a really cool hg feature that would make collaborative commit rewriting so much cleaner, for one.