Mercurial Servers

[Gary Kramlich]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Mark Doliner <mark at kingant.net> wrote:
> I'm in favor of switching to Bitbucket. I've used it a bit over the
> years and have been happy.

Yay!

> These are the two things I think are important. Sounds like they're
> both possible.
> - commit emails

With their webhooks we can reproduce anything we had before really.
It just needs to get done.

> - non-public branches or repos for security fixes. Especially useful
> if they're able to be shared with a few specific people or groups of
> people (so other devs can test security fixes before the release,
> contribute more fixes, check out and build packages ahead of time).

We can do a separate private repo with a "Packagers/Security" group
that has access or something.

> The trac post-commit hook is also nice to have.

Thats still working with the sync right now.  I can update my webhook
to do it directly.

> Also just want to point out that you really get the benefit of
> switching to Bitbucket if you're able to stop running your own
> Mercurial server. So ideally you'd shut down the server on rock and
> not bother trying to keep it in sync or keep it running or apply
> security updates or ever have to think about ACL for it. I also think
> it's a good idea to keep all the existing source code (all branches in
> all repos) accessible somehow (e.g. hosting static files or dumping
> everything to Bitbucket), but I might be alone in that.

Right now the sync is to let everyone transition.  Long term, I would
like to shut it down. But we need to figure out what to do with SOC
repositories and stuff.

>> Our Bitbucket team has unlimited users and repositories
>
> That's interesting--why is that? Their pricing page looks like it's
> only free for small teams (https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing).

Correct, we are on an "Academic" plan which is free with unlimited users.


Thanks,

--
Gary Kramlich <grim at reaperworld.com>