[jeremyjh]

So since you are knowledgeable about the fact that this decision was "dumb", you must also know approximately what proportion of their users were dependent on hg for their workflow ? My priors would put it at less - likely far less - than 1%. But please share your knowledge.

[ayhanfuat]

In the announcement they mentioned that less than 1% of new users were choosing hg. It was probably slightly higher for old users.

> In fact, Mercurial usage on Bitbucket is steadily declining, and the percentage of new Bitbucket users choosing Mercurial has fallen to less than 1%.

https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-b...

[cmrdporcupine]

FWIW I had stuff on Bitbucket from the Before Atlassian times, in Hg repos. And while I had let it bitrot a bit (too complicated to work on open source stuff with my employer at the time), once they dropped Mercurial support I saw no point in moving it to git and keeping it there so I just pulled it off and move it to github.

I'm sure I'm not the only one. The compelling story about Bitbucket for me was Mercurial.

Plus Atlassian is kind of just an awful company.

[sproingie]

> Plus Atlassian is kind of just an awful company.

How so?

[culi]

Still seems near-sighted. If someone started a new mercurial project what would they choose to host it on? BitBucket basically automatically wins new users by being the only player in the game

[jeremyjh]

They gave away free private repositories when Github was charging $7/month. That's the only reason they had most of the users they had.

[gmueckl]

Not true. I looked at the complete list of hosted projects on Bitbucket just when it was shut down and I recall that at least 10% of all repos ever created on Bitbucket were hg repos.