It's very unfortunate. Bitbucket is one of the only providers of quality software project management tools that explicitly support Mercurial out of the box. We use both Mercurial and Git in our work, but the lack of Mercurial support has us compelled to use other solutions from other providers. You can imagine how pleasant the integration and compatilibity issues that crop up are with this kind of compromise.

Thank you, got it. So sad...

It may be marked Resolved, but the Resolution is "Answered" and the answer a year ago was "No, not ever."  Alas.

One could only hope!

It seems that this issue has been changed to resolved, I wonder whether it will be added to the coming version of Bitbucket Server? Thanks~

We're using both git and mercurial. And it is really sad that there is no mercurial support... We will buy bitbucket server when it will support mercurial....

p.s. we're users of Jira software

And yet, in this announcement, you're saying you are not supporting our needs.

And it is a shame, because for git there are plenty of mature solutions for on premise hosting, both paid (github enterprise, gitlab enterprise and others) and free (gitlab community and others), while this is much lacking for mercurial (basically all lack SSH keys support for starter).

Also a shame considering that Atlassian renamed Stash to “Bitbucket Server” and that Bitbucket was originally exclusively a mercurial solution. Though this is coherent with the low mercurial support on Bitbucket (although they finally added evolve support recently, which is a nice move, only too late for many people). A more coherent renaming would have been to rename Bitbucket cloud to “Stash Cloud” or “Stash Online”, they would at least avoid the very natural request to have mercurial support on a product which uses the name of another which started as an exclusive mercurial hosting solution.

People would still have been disappointed not to have mercurial support on Stash, but would feel much less betrayed than not having mercurial support on “Bitbucket something”, as this is particularly a slap on the face to all Atlassian customers who are mercurial users, and push them away from ALL Atlassian products (when they are given the choice).

We're confident that the improvements we have planned for Git-based development in Bitbucket Server will unleash the greatest overall potential in software teams around the world, and we look forward to supporting you.

And yet, in this announcement, you're saying you are not supporting our needs.

Hi everyone,

Firstly, thanks for your feedback, passion and advocacy for this suggestion. Please accept my apologies for allowing this issue to remain open for some time without clear direction from Atlassian.

We would love to support the availability of choices when it comes to DVCS-based development in Bitbucket Server. However, we have decided that the engineering cost of adding and maintaining Mercurial support is ultimately the wrong direction to take the product. While it is heartening to see recent developments in Mercurial as an SCM, we have not seen signs of a positive market shift that would justify an investment for Bitbucket Server, especially given strong demand from existing customers for more capabilities based on Git.

A number of people have offered approaches to make this suggestion a reality for Bitbucket Server, and we've explored and discussed them all. Ultimately, we feel that any commitment to Mercurial would need to be a full commitment; anything else defers future disappointment, as a second-class solution leads to frustration and regret.

While Bitbucket Server and Bitbucket Cloud offer the same primary code collaboration features, they do have different origins, allowing them to optimize for the needs of their subtly different customer bases. Bitbucket Cloud has a strong foundation as a Mercurial hosting product and has a loyal following that it will continue to support while also investing in a range of other improvements. I reiterate my past recommendations to consider Bitbucket Cloud for Mercurial hosting if the choice between DVCS options is what is most important to you.

So if we are not going to implement this feature in Bitbucket Server, what are we doing instead? We remain committed to helping software teams deliver high quality software faster in an increasingly competitive and changing world. We believe that great developer tools are a key element of modern software development in the hands of good teams with smart processes. To that end, we've made improvements already and are planning to work in the following areas that help with problems teams face now:

• scaling to ever larger numbers of users and CI/CD load - security, performance and manageability at scale is baked into everything we do
• seamless workflow integration between Atlassian and other leading products, bringing together the combined power of best of breed tools
• innovations that increase team consistency and developer productivity, and reduce complexity despite an ever evolving technology landscape

Thank you again for your long-standing interest and feedback on this issue. We're confident that the improvements we have planned for Git-based development in Bitbucket Server will unleash the greatest overall potential in software teams around the world, and we look forward to supporting you.

If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me directly.

Cheers,
Roger Barnes
Principal Product Management - Bitbucket Server
rbarnes |at| atlassian |dot| com

Quite a few teams in my company are using Mercurial. We just setup our On-Prem Bitbucket server, supporting of Mercurial will make the life much easier for our Mercurial teams to get benefit from Bitbucket server.