Sunsetting Mercurial Support in Bitbucket

Source: Hacker News

Article note: Huh. I was recently working on something hosted on bitbucket with mercurial for the first time in years and was refreshed by how much less gross mecurial is than git (granted, mercurial is still aggravatingly slow). It's very weird to see the over-complicated "Hammering a nail by de-orbiting a space station" ergonomic nightmare that is git become de-facto standard.
This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Sunsetting Mercurial Support in Bitbucket

  1. Oliver says:

    Fully agree. One thing I’d like to understand is why you say Hg is slow? For me it never was slow on any of the supported systems.

    Given that Git is a lossy SCM and Mercurial isn’t, that is the biggest worry I have. A subpar system becoming the standard. SCM is meant to keep a true-to-the-bit record of what was going on (and if there was the ability to change history, to make that obvious). With Mercurial a clone will always contain everything, except for purely local stuff like bookmarks. In Git everything is local by default, including branches. In Git it’s already a PITA to create a clone whose local counterpart contains a setup for all remote branches to be tracked by local branches of the same name. Rather than providing this as a default, you have to go through hoops with shell commands (which isn’t an option on all “supported” systems in the same way).

    Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.

    — Alan Kay

    … Git is the antithesis of this supposition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *