Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source

Re:Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, no... by canadiangeek2 on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @08:50PM (#11671885)

My $0.02 canadian; Build something that kicks Gitlab and Github's ass. What an opportunity. Support both BK and GIT repos. Provide a distributed workflow that enterprises will love. Enterprises are obviously where the remaining dollars are. There are billions of dollars of inefficiencies in that sector. Many of these enterprises do NOT want to host their code on Github and are buying Gitlab. Be better than Gitlab.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, no... by nikatwork on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @10:22PM (#11672215)

Github sucks for corporate version control, it's just not designed for the kind of strict role-based change control that enterprise needs. Great support though.

I haven't checked out Bitbucket because last time I evaluated (2+ years ago) they didn't have good on-prem options.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, no... by jason_s on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @10:14PM (#11672186)

^^ this. PLEASE. :-(

Bitbucket has been rotting since Atlassian bought them, and now there's really no "killer app" for Mercurial hosting. There are Mercurial hosting services out there, but nothing anywhere close to Github/Gitlab.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, no... by marcinkuzminski on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @08:54AM (#11674788)

You should check out RhodeCode. It's no hosting platform, but hosting it yourself is much better. It support Mercurial, and all latest things that comes with it like phases, largefiles etc.

Actually since BK is now opensource we might think of adding a BK backend to RhodeCode and our VCS abstraction layer that already supports GIT, Mercurial and Subversion

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, no... by luckydude on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @02:16PM (#11677788)

We would love that. Contact [email protected] if you have any questions/issues.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, no... by riffraff on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @02:26AM (#11673009)

doesn't github support mercurial?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, no... by cauterized on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @06:48AM (#11674117)

Nope, but Bitbucket does support git.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, no... by sytse on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @07:06PM (#11680112)

At GitLab we're unlikely to support BK due to lack of demand. What do you mean with a distributed workflow, something like https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/4084 ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, no... by augustz on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @09:46PM (#11672094)

Great comment. Good points. Also - for enterprise, it's OK if the model ends up being a bit simpler than git - may actually be a positive. Give up some things, but get simplicity that scales to a 1,000 folks using some old VCS.

Looking forward to some hopefully differentiated features.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, no... by aerique on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @09:28AM (#11675036)

Just supporting big binary files in a hassle-free way would go a huge way to being better than Git and Gitlab.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, no... by ryao on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @09:48AM (#11675194)

What would you consider to be hassle-free?

[ Parent | on HN ]