No offence, but as someone who has only ever used github and gitlab, can you clarify why it's uncool?
I am yet to find something that works as good as Atlassian products.
Individually they all have a lot of flaws to the point that if they only existed on their own, no one would use them. But features like native support for referencing Jira issues in Confluence and having them auto-update makes companies want to use it.
Part of it, I think, is the development tool version of "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". It's considered the safe choice. Enterprise-y companies get wooed by all the "Atlassian consultants" floating around out there. The ecosystem is just designed to attract enterprise users.
Fair enough, I agree - they are not that poorly integrated as they are just really poor tools.
Their tools are remarkably slow, with each page both being remarkably JavaScript-heavy and constantly reloading (the two should be mutually exclusive, right?).
They really aren't bad, and have some advantages, but they are not a joy to use.
Yes exactly that, i think for bit-bucket it would have been less damaging NOT to support git but exclusively mercurial..and maybe bitkeeper ;)
I'm not the biggest Atlassian fan, but they posted in August last year, gave 10 months notice and cited that less than 1% of new repos being created are using mercurial as their primary reason for doing so. If you cared about a project, almost a year is plenty of time to move it. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to sunset a feature that is not widely used by your users, not widely used outside of your userbase, and that requires ongoing maintenance that the other 99% of repositories could benefit from instead.
That's not OK and I'm clearly very, very angry as a former user.
I mean, it's still there. If it's that much of an issue, and the tooling has been made by the community, you're free to archive it now. At what point is it ok for them to say "hey, we don't want to pay to store the data/keep the codepaths to display/interact with this data" anymore?
How many of those people were paying customers before this? I don't know the answer offhand, but if I had to guess, I'd suspect a small number of them.
> That's not OK and I'm clearly very, very angry as a former user.
I hope as a paying customer, you cancelled your subscription to them and told them explicitly why then.
At the point when they make it super easy for the people to archive the data themselves. Code part is easy, PRs, issues and downloads are hard. See: Google takeout
> I hope as a paying customer, you cancelled your subscription to them and told them explicitly why then.
Not just even for me, I made my company switch to it, and we were also hoping support for mercurial in the future, but were okay with it not supporting mercurial in local deployments, we had our hg repos on bitbucket.org. When the news broke, I moved to GitHub and perkeep (for archiving all the JSON data that I painstakingly had to scrape), and my (now former) company found a smaller vendor that offered what BitBucket was supposed to offer but never delivered, only for 100x the price (although one-time, custom development for them).
It can be whatever people want to use it for. The customisation and the key features of the tool are not bad. Then again, most tools are neutral until a person wields them.
[Edit typo]
I have endured all, from web forms storing their data via Perl CGI scripts to Excel sheets which require a PhD in VBA macros to change anything.
Still a great fan of Trac. Old but gold, simple and fast. Suffers a bit from a historical focus on SVN, but can be adapted to git easily.
I get that Jira can be poorly configured, but it's not Lotus Notes bad.
I've transitioned with companies from Github to Gitlab, from Bitbucket to GitHub etc. but never to Bitbucket. In fairness I was using Gitlab during their great outage, so I can say that cool is not always reliable. And coolness fades and dies relatively fast.
But I can't remember Bitbucket ever being cool.