On 9/12/19 10:04 PM, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
I was heartened to see this message and I hope something will come
of it. In general I agree with what you mentioned as the desiderata.
For me the key combination of features that made Bitbucket great were
that it offered:
1. unlimited
2. free
3. private
4. Mercurial repositories
I feel there is a huge difference between having all of those
features and having any three of them. In particular the ability to
have unlimited PRIVATE repositories is, I think, a huge benefit for
people using Hg for casual projects. I have lots of projects that I'm
working on by myself or maybe with one or two other people, and I
don't want to make them publically available, but I'd still like to be
able to have a server somewhere that I can push and pull to so that I
can work on different computers.
Just out of curiousity: why is #1 necessary for casual projects? I don't
know what specific limits are being referred to, but repository size and
change frequency and total bandwidth should all be pretty small for
casual projects.
Is it because of the possibility that a casual project turns serious,
and you wouldn't want to switch repository providers if that happens?
Though even that feels like a niche -- if a casual project turns
serious, then why keep it private? After all -- if it's private, then by
definition not many people can use it, so limits don't matter very much.
I can visualize other use cases that *would* want all four of the above,
but I find it harder to see why anyone would have the incentives to
support those. (eg your company wants its stuff to be private, and has
lots of developers hitting the repo -- why would anyone want to pay for
your hosting if it's invisible to the outside world?)
_______________________________________________
Mercurial mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
