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...

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.

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

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.

Bitbucket is not bad. It has features I miss in GitHub, particularly the larger selection of PR merge strategies so I can satisfy my git history OCD.

Probably the Atlassian product I hate the least.

Yes it’s also been rewritten since acquisition which was when hg support was dropped afaik

You're talking Web site, not version control system.

Annoys the fuck out of me, this conflating git with GitHub.

The hosted Bitbucket and Bitbucket Server (formerly called Stash) only share the name. They are completely different implementations and Bitbucket Server never supported Mercurial.

GitHub has GitHub Enterprise Server?