[mrcharles]

I just use bitbucket.org + Mercurial. More than enough for personal projects, or more, given that it's unlimited. The only limit is amount of users.

Switching to Hg was a bit of work, but I've actually learned to like it more than Git. Really though, it's the same kind of thing and I just use both. So I ended up at bitbucket for the same reasons OP built a new site.

My way was quicker though.

[StavrosK]

I use github for the network effects, but how does hg compare to git, speed-wise? I switched to git from bzr because bzr felt awesomely slow, although git is a real pain to use, even when you're familiar with it.

I understand that bzr and hg are almost identical, command-wise, but hg is about as fast as git, is that correct? What my workflow consists of is diffs/statuses/commits/pushes/pulls in projects with working trees of a few MB at most.

[eropple]

Hg is marginally slower, but not so you'd really notice. If you're crunching 20,000-line files on a regular basis it might be a concern. On repos of that size, I doubt you'd notice.

Git is a great tool for what it was built for and the group of users it was intended for--that is, rapid, tons-of-merges-and-pulls development on a gigantic codebase, for users for whom it is acceptable for man pages to serve as reminders rather than instructions. However, I appreciate the additional attention paid to tooling and user-friendliness in Mercurial-land that make it more pleasant for me to use.

[StavrosK]

The fact that all the tools can push to github make it easy to switch, which I just might do again. bzr was great, except for the fact that it just doesn't have that much traction...

[eropple]

I found bzr to be much as you described it - like hg, but slower. Nothing objectionable about the workflow (though the tools on Windows were very poor, I wasn't using Windows much at the time), just the perf on a particularly large chunk of code.

[mrcharles]

I don't have a large codebase to compare with honestly, plus since I'm working alone I don't generally have a lot of diffing/merging. But nothing I've done has had me saying "Boy that was slow," unlike something like Perforce, which is just slow. Always. Forever.

[lucian1900]

I've yet to find any significant speed difference between git and hg.

Hg is slower overall, but scales just as well as git. A huge repo will still be just slightly slower in hg than in git.

[StavrosK]

I thought so, thanks. Looks like I'll be switching, git is just too obtuse.

[kingkilr]

hg is slower, but still totally manageable

[asymmetric]

have you looked into something like http://hg-git.github.com/ ?

[pnathan]

I agree. I would love to use github more but I want private repositories.

[mrcharles]

Yes, same. I love all the effort they've put in to the web front end, but I'm not interested in their pay plans for private repos, which to me, is just too damn expensive. $12 a month for github repos with five collaborators and a piddly disc space limit, whereas I get five collabs and unlimited disk on bitbucket.

[superkarn]

His way is bringing in money.

I use bitbucket, too, because of the unlimited private repositories.

[xbryanx]

So wish I could use bitbucket, but switching off Git isn't an option for our team.

[asymmetric]

You can try hg-git[1] to keep using git, and then push to a hg repo[2].

[1]: http://hg-git.github.com/ [2]: http://traviscline.com/blog/2010/04/27/using-hg-git-to-work-...

[Uchikoma]

I assume Bitbucket is free as Atlassian has deeper pockets.