BitBucket vs. GitLab.com

Re:BitBucket vs. GitLab.com by M8 on Friday April 17, 2015 @12:12PM (#9395256)

The major flaw of GitLab is using Git. After having used something as logical as Mercurial it's kinda hard to switch. Besides I don't care about social and Torvalds-hype.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BitBucket vs. GitLab.com by jobvandervoort on Friday April 17, 2015 @12:22PM (#9395341)

Currently the majority of developers and organisations are using Git. This makes it more interesting for us to focus on Git, rather than support other DVCS's.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BitBucket vs. GitLab.com by M8 on Friday April 17, 2015 @12:29PM (#9395398)

That's understandable - from business point of view. I bet you would just use SVN instead of innovating with a new DVCS ~7 years ago. Safe choice is a safe choice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BitBucket vs. GitLab.com by rgbrgb on Friday April 17, 2015 @12:43PM (#9395508)

git is 10 years old [1]. mercurial is 9 years old [2]. git won.

Way back when I was looking at both (7 years ago maybe?), it seemed that mercurial's main selling point was functional equivalence to git with a "better" architecture and source language. This is the ultimate case study in the fact that neither of those things matter to users (even deeply technical users) unless they impact user experience (stability, performance, UI, etc).

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software) [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercurial

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BitBucket vs. GitLab.com by isxek on Friday April 17, 2015 @09:23PM (#9398013)

Let's be clear: they were both created in the same year and the same month (April 2005). Not trying to be pedantic here.

[ Parent | on HN ]