It will be very good to have BitBucket support added.
Sorry, no immediate plans to do so.
Well, the full explanation is that we do have this on our radar but the changes would be very very extensive.
We don't have a timeline for this, nor even confirmation it will go ahead.
Thanks for logging the issue, but it is best to close it for now. Sorry.
Can you elaborate on what the issues are? I might be interested into hacking on code around this. It seems like just pulling repositories from Bitbucket wouldn't be that hard. We could leave authentication to not-Github out of the picture for now.
@djc indeed just adapting the checkout itself shouldn't be that hard. but we'll need support for Bitbuckets push payload and we need to have a way to synchronize a user's repositories and permissions to them, which is what Travis' user interface is built around. There's unfortunately a lot more involved than meets the eye, but if you're interested in hacking on that, by all means, go for it! :)
Can you give an indication of what the relevant areas of the codebase are?
travis-listener accepts events from Github and queues them up to rabbitmq. they are going to be picked up by apps that use service classes in travis-core.
i think a good start might be to look at travis-core and find occurrences of "Github" and "GH"
I'd be interested in this too. I don't really have the time (or any experience with ruby) to contribute but maybe the good folks over at Atlassian could be persuaded to put some time into this as it would benefit their product (BitBucket) to. Sadly I don't really know anyone over there...
The bigger issue would be that we rely on GitHub completely for user management, access control etc. I think even if all the parts in the code base would be isolated, having a single instance that serves both GitHub and BitBucket. Though if the user management etc do get abstracted and reimplemented for BitBucket, I think it wouldn't be to hard to have a second instance running. I don't think Atlasssian would be interested in contributing to Travis CI, as they have their own proprietary alternative.
Long story short: We'd love this feature, but don't have the resources to add it.
👍 ...for reconsidering this in the future.
Would love to see support for bitbucket added. We use Jira and use bitbucket because it integrates heavily with the atlassian product suite. As an enterprise we are definitely open to a paid, hosted solution.
Please do consider this. Github is only one of many DVCS services available.
We appreciate your +1 on this, but at this point we can't give any ETA on when we'll support BitBucket.
+1 as a (poor) sole dev i use bitbucket private repo... because it's free.
Due to the inability to github to provide an issue voting solution, people are spamming the issues with useless comments, also spamming watcher's inboxes, ending up in people configuring "Igore this thread"... probably the same happens even with the travis-ci developers. Bye!
I hardly think all these people taking their time to show their support for this feature is useless. That's a +1 from me.
Is there any statistic about how many github users are watching this issue (at least available for the project owners)?
+1 just in case someone cares about it...
Bitbucket allows you to authenticate using your Github username nowadays. Would it be a nice / good idea to just add support for Bitbucket repos while still using Github user account info?
(It shouldn't be exceedingly hard to check someone's Bitbucket account to see what repos they have right?)
+1, and I don't care about user/account/permission features if I can use github's. The clone url should be sufficient.
Perhaps adding a bounty via Bountysource? Those +1s would be translated to dollars :)
There are more issues with this than just authentication. Off the top of my head:
There's more too, I'm sure. If we were to implement this I'd also like to see it be generic enough to implement other hosting sites as well.
Like said above, this is indeed on our radar, but right now we have a lot of other things we'd like to do, and this just isn't a priority for us at the moment.
+1 GOGOGO :) You're awesome 👍
Although I prefer GitHub, there are projects that I'm involved with that are hosted on Bitbucket that would be nice to have support for.
+1 dammit!!! :)
+1. Our company is stuck with Jenkins until this feature exists!
We used Jenkins before and we moved to bamboo 1 month ago, for now it's really cool, we don't regret. We'll see later for our friend travis if they decide to support bitbucket.
+1 for that one, this would be such a nice thing!
(Darn, shouldn't have used a float...)
Even an option that only worked with public BitBucket repos, and only with commits rather than pull requests would be worthwhile. At that point, it wouldn't need to be BitBucket specific at all. Instead:
I concur with @ncoghlan
Need this feature too, seen Travis today and I have private repos on BitBucket. +1
need this too
Jumping on the bandwagon: +1
Github is my number one, but some projects I am working on are hosted elsewhere, and Bitbucket is often selected.
I'm not comfortable with just advertising competing products here, but people really need to learn how to use a search engine. There are plenty of hosted CI options available, at least 2 of which provide BitBucket support and a "free for open source" plan - the name of 1 begins with "d", and another begins with "M".
Hopefully the Travis developers are already aware of these options and prioritise this issue accordingly, but can all the useless +1 comments please stop? Spend a little time with your search engine of choice and find a solution to your problem today, then maybe come back to Travis when this issue is resolved. If all the +1 noise stops, the notification system on this issue might actually become useful and bring such news to the attention of every interested party. :)
@welwood08 perhaps you need to be comfortable with using your brain and realize the problem is not that we don't want to use a search engines (chances are that we did, don't you think?). Who told you those competing services (not products) are what we need? Are you sure they offer the exact same functionality?
If you dislike the +1, there is a Unwatch button right at the bottom. Of course, if you have any other way of enabling users to state that they need/want this particular feature, feel free to let us know.
Based on the sheer number of +1's, I can tell that this a very popular idea. I know people mean well, but since the entire Travis team gets a ping when someone comments, can we please stop with the. +1's? There are so many, it's getting impossible to find other comments 😄
@Aaron1011 it seems best idea for stopping these +1 comments is to realize the bitbucket integraion & close this issue 😄
@asiniy: Yeah 😄. However, as the Travis team send before, it's going to be a lot of work. The gh library is used all over the code, and it would need to be changed to some kind of selector, which would choose Gtihub or Bitbucket
@Aaron1011 people don't want to hear you. They don't want bitbucket support too, they want just to +1 this issue 😄
P.S. This issue seems annoying to me too.
Unsubscribed from these annoying notifications 😃
I recently discovered Magnum-CI which works with Bitbucket. So I decided to start using that until Travis picks up BitBucket support.
Yup. drone.io also looks nice.
Also trying drone.io for now -- count me among the disappointed. I checked out Travis-CI on an enthusiastic recommendation from a developer who didn't understand it was limited to Github.
In my experience, Drone only allowed for a trial run of 50 builds. We switched over to wercker, which has worked well thus far. I'll give Magnum CI a try as well. Thanks for the tip.
@mmoayyed, from what I can tell that limit only applies to private repositories.
+1 This is a great tool, but presently inaccessible to me.
Err, I mean, +1
+1 and I concur with @ncoghlan: Allow arbitrary public repositories and allow triggering a build via a web hook.
Then later consider expanding it.
I know that I can use a different service, but I'd rather use travis.ci, even if I can't the github integration.
+2 already taken by @docteurklein
+10 (devs in our company)
Github is great, but Travis-CI is currently unsuitable for customers who find themselves required to avoid vendor lock-in, such as some of the serious corporates I work with.
This is something we need.
While assessing other hosted CI solutions I've come to learn that there's a lot going on that the GitHub API provides. Great. There's one small but critical design-level problem in play here - if its the GitHub API, then ITS NOT GIT.
I'd be surprised if there isn't some workflow or other design level change that can't be applied to open the door to other repos. The whole idea of GIT was to be decentralized and distributed. This is clearly not respected here. Coding, even devops, is about finding solutions to problems. Heck, even the Heroku workflow is a new git destination and plenty of developers are comfortable with that. Here are some workarounds to the github API:
GitHub is great, but it's not "everything git". Please provide some level of support for other toolchains.
@okev: There's some discussion about this near the (way) top of the issue, which you might have missed.
To summarize, the code for Travis CI is heavily structured around Github, from everything from authentication to receiving push events. Massive refactoring will be required to add BitBucket support. You can search through travis-core for gh -it's the Github API library Travis CI uses. Given the amount of time and effort involved, the Travis team feels that they can't commit to such a huge change now, or at some definite future data. You're welcome to work towards it yourself, however. Adding in abstractions around using gh is a good first step, I think.
Also, it would be nice if no more people added '+1' comments. There are already a ton of them, and everyone on the Travis team gets a notification when one is added. See my above comment and the top of the issue for more information.
+1, it's just an api - c'mon!