Create a way to group repositories/projects or folders (BB-1086)

Issue #2323 resolved
Petterson Paula
created an issue

I've a lot of repositories and would be great if there was some way to organize them. Something like folders or labels.

2015-09-06 Dan Bennett: Added link to an issue requesting support for labels (issue #11800). We will finish "projects" under this issue but labels and projects are not mutually exclusive therefore labels should continue to be tracked.

Update 2015-12-17: This feature is currently available as an opt-in beta. Go to your account settings and you should see a new "Manage features" option. Enabling Projects on your account will allow you to create and manage projects on any team for which you are an admin, and see projects on other teams as well. If you'd like collaborators to see your projects as well ask them to turn on the feature on their own account.

Comments (731)

  1. David Vega

    Just re-posting some points of the duplicate ticket:

    It would be nice to be able to categorize projects in a folder/directory-like (i.e. nested) way for the following reasons:

    • Better organization: I have like 30 repositories, some are Joomla extensions, some are Symfony plugins, some are websites for clients, some are internal experiments. My home & repository pages feel cluttered.
    • Easier access control: Client projects and internal projects. Client projects always have the same set of permissions and same goes for internal projects, but they are different sets of permissions.
    • Friendlier URLs: I think that maybe it would be more natural to have something like account/clients/client-x/site and account/clients/client-x/store than account/client-x-site and account/client-x-store.
    • Potential Automatic hgsub generation: Maybe if, say, there is an account/foo repository, there would be a button that says "Add Sub repo", this would ask you the normal stuff to create the new repo and where you want to land it in the parent repo. If, perhaps, you wanted to use an existing one it would just ask you the URL (or Bitbucket path) and where you want to land it.
  2. Leif Ringstad

    Would it be possible to make "automatic" organization if naming of repositories are like this:

    application\repo1
    application\repo2
    application\another_repo_tree\subrepo1
    application\another_repo_tree\subrepo2
    
    

    layout visually should then be:

    + application
      - repo 1
      - repo2
      + another_repo_tree
        - subrepo1
        - subrepo2
    

    This would only require visual grouping using javascript/html/css, and no change to the backend.

  3. Solutionhead Technologies

    Throwing my hat into this ring! I use BB/Mercurial for my startup's DVCS. At a minimum, I would like to be able to separate my clients' code from our internal projects without having to create a new BB account. However, unlike @Leif, I don't think this should just be a front-end change. While I would be happy with the smallest organization capability, I would also like to push the envelope a little bit and suggest the ability to assign user permissions by directory/folder much like an actual file system.

    Thanks for the great platform! BB has provided tremendous benefit to my company!

  4. Simone Orsi

    Hi, my company has started using bitbucket for internal projects and this is kinda a 'must-have' feature for us.

    I think labels plus some filters/grouping on them would work well and probably would require less coding effort (for BB staff) than allowing nested projects structure.

    my $0.02

  5. Edward Marti

    Is anybody working on this? As I mentioned before, this would help my research group a lot, where we need to organize a large number of small, independent repositories.

    Thanks for all the improvements, bitbucket!

  6. David Vega

    I don't know if the repository widget addresses the concern here... it is just a copy of Github's solution to have a relatively uncluttered list of repositories.

  7. Roman Starkov

    I have a feeling that the issue was marked "resolved" by mistake. Neither of the accounts named "Marcus Bertrand" here are particularly active. I think we should reopen this.

    My repo list is worse than ever and is only going to get even worse over time...

  8. John Chamberlain

    +1

    I would love to have this feature, I work with in multiple different languages, for multiple different types of plugins/modifications/custom code etc. Organization between these is quite limited and is a major issue when I have one project with multiple pieces requiring multiple repositories (different languages)

  9. JD Fagan

    +1 for Leif's idea for the short-term. Simple, effective hierarchy solution.

    +1 for labels/tags eventually for easy cross-indexing projects against one or more tags

  10. Michael Cox (mikehcox)

    From my issue #5413:

    The main two reasons I've switched from using GitHub to BitBucket are the more liberal private repository hosting policy and that I could create a nested repository directory structure (or so I thought). Unfortunately, the "slug" git repository name mapping implemented on BitBucket interferes with my attempts to use a nested repository directory structure.

    First some background info.

    The Boost C++ libraries project is currently experimenting with converting their Subversion repository to a set of git repositories: a git repository named boost.git acting as a super-project and separate submodule git repositories for each C++ library and tool in Boost. The experimental Boost C++ libraries are hosted under github.com/boost-lib. I currently have a local LAN server that has mirror cloned github.com/boost-lib repositories, pulling down the changes as desired. These mirror cloned repositories are under ~scm/git/oss/tool/boost-lib on the LAN server and are identical to the github.com/boost-lib repositories. I then again mirror cloned the ~scm/git/oss/tool/boost-lib repositories to reside under ~scm/git/bluezoo/tool/boost-lib, which are shared by my individual local projects. These ~scm/git/bluezoo/tool/boost-lib mirror cloned repositories are identical to the github.com/boost-lib repositories except they contain a bluezoo/master branch that is identical to the original master branch except for modifications to the .gitmodules file (see attachment). I modify the .gitmodules file to use a relative path instead of an absolute path to the github.com/boost-lib submodule repositories, e.g. all the url properties in the .gitmodules files are changed from the absolute http://github.com/boost-lib/foo.git to the relative ../foo.git. This allows me to do a --recurse-submodules push to the LAN server repositories from my local project repositories and a --recurse-submodules pull from the LAN server repositories to my local project repositories. I'd like to be able to push my LAN server repositories with their nested repository submodule structure to BitBucket, but because of the "slug" mapping my BitBucket mhcox/bluezoo/tool/boost-lib/boost.git repository is mapped to bluezoo-tool-boost-lib-boost.git, this appears impossible.

    So can the "slug" mapping algorithm be modified to allow nested repository directory structures?

  11. Toomas

    I wish this would happen ASAP. There is a lot of whining going on in my company that it takes so much time to find the repositories with the current grouping options (All, Follwing, Mine, Team). Adding my comment to show support for this!

    +1

  12. Aaron Ware

    Our organization would love this. We have around 25 repos now and it will be expanding to over 50 for different projects (themes, vs plugins vs utilities). Even if it's just a simple tagging. I'd love to have some of the other features mentioned above. But even a short term solution for organizing would be great

  13. Alastair Gilfillan

    Unless adding detail to an issue or contributing suggestions/commits, one should not comment with things like +1 otherwise people watching the issue might unsubscribe which would make an issue appear to affect less people and be lower-priority to fix.

  14. Alex Shepherd

    @Appastair Then how will Bitbucket understand the importance of this issue? Just by the number of people watching? It's changed from on hold to in progress while people have just been commenting +1.

  15. Fotis Paraskevopoulos

    Watch as well as Vote in issue tracking systems don't make any sense to me because they are judged in the relation to the total pool of voters/watchers.

    So let say that bitbucket has 10000 users, and 102 are watching this issue that means that only ~1% of the total users are interested in this features which I don't think is a valid representation of the impact. If you however say that there are 400 watchers in total and 102 are watching this issue then you can infer that this issues carries a 25% impact.

    So the +1s are a much better indication than votes or watchers IMHO.

  16. Lucas Eagleton

    +1

    Unfortunately, I dare say this is a low priority - Atlassian's Stash (which i great - I use it at work for work things) has the concept of projects which group your repos together and has some other improved features over BitBucket.

    Stash however is for use inside 1 company and unlikely to be used in the way that BitBucket is socially.

  17. Tony Brimeyer

    I opened a ticket with Atlassian on this exact topic. The appeal of BitBucket for my organization is that it is hosted, whereas Stash is not and will not be available "On-Demand". This is one of the aspects of Stash that are really appealing for organizational use.

    Ultimately we will start using BitBucket despite these limitations and evaluate over the next few months on if its worth it to bite the bullet and purchase Stash or a Stash-like product and host it on something like AWS. I think this feature would be a tipping point to stick around.

  18. Clive Crous

    Ok, so I really needed something like this after my repo list has grown over the years and in my naivete I'd thought I had a "new idea". This thread's been going a long time. A lot of people are obviously wanting this feature. Please Atlassian. +1

  19. VincentK

    I've been watching this issue for about a year now. All that time, I've been receiving multiple notifications basically every day of people getting behind this issue. I'm giving up hope and unwatching the issue. I'll be pleasantly surprised if Atlassian ever implements a solution for this issue but I'm no longer anticipating it.

  20. Kailash Yadav

    Atlassian should update this issue. I do not found any comment from Atlassian here. If they can not fix this issue then they should close it. I do not understand why they are not implementing this feature. Same feature is available in Gerrit.

  21. André Thieme

    Tags would be the most flexible structure here. A folder is equivalent to exactly one tag, and groups can be the same. If multiple groups are allowed then it is equivalent to tags. The advantage of tags is that we can do a binary and/or/not search tree.

  22. Justen Stepka

    We know this is an issue and we would like to do something about this -- internal at Atlassian we have many repositories which need better groupings. Right now though we a few other features prioritized:

    • Branch permissions
    • Integrated authentication between JIRA, HipChat, Bitbucket
    • An event system that stores feed history more than 30 days

    Once we are able to roll these features out we'll circle back to this feature and provide an update.

    Thanks for your patience, Justen -- Bitbucket product manager

  23. Asbjørn Ulsberg

    We've just moved well over 100 repositories from a self-hosted Subversion server to Bitbucket/Git and sorely miss the nice folder hierarchy we had in Subversion to organize repositories by customer and project. We can create naming standards that use 'Customer.Project.' prefixes on all repositories, but that still means all repositories are top-level and difficult to navigate.

    So, yea: +1!

  24. Aaron Ritter

    I wonder what would be the best way to do it. Folders give you hierarchy, but labels let you multi-label. Can the two advantages be combined? Hierarchical labels?

  25. Tristan Rineer

    I know I'd like to be able to have recursive URLS, so folders might work best for me, but I'm not opposed to labels. I'd just like to be able to see URLs like these:

    {group}/wordpress/themes/{theme}

    {group}/wordpress/plugins/{plugin}

    {group}/wordpress/frameworks/...

    etc.

    I don't really care how it's implemented, but I'll be thrilled if the results allow that structure.

  26. Avi Schwab

    All, There is no reason to comment "+1" on this issue (or any issue here, for that matter). There are "Vote" and "Watch" options at the top. You can do either of those to express your support without clogging up the comment stream. Thanks.

  27. Joseph Earl

    +1 for better organization, more specifically:

    • alphabetical and activity as sorting order options
    • ability to create a group (with a sorting order for the groups and a repo sorting order for each group)
    • ability to filter by language
    • tags, ability to filter by tag(s)
  28. Samuel Haddad

    Please do not just +1. You can vote instead. Every time you +1, everyone watching will get a e-mail. This flood of e-mails is more likely to cause people to stop watching the issue which will actually lower the support for this issue.

  29. Joe Brassi

    Yes, I have to manage a lot of repositories and there's no way to organize them. +1 Folders. If you can also make a way to archive them that would be a plus.

  30. Sébastien GAUTRIN

    Whatever the chosen way is for grouping repository, it would go a long way if it integrated well with permissions so that you could give permissions based on repositories.

    The main use case for that would be a team account where developer create feature forks within the team account (as having developers fork on their own account leads to permissions limit issues which have been mentioned in a few other issues, more or less dismissed or with a suggestion to fork within the team account instead - issue #7285). In this use case (for which the ability to group repositories is more or less mandatory for it to be usable), team admins would probably want to give write/repo creation permissions only in selected « directories » (or tags or whatever), and not on the whole team account.

  31. Nicolas Geraud

    I need a way to filter my repositories by languages and categories.

    For example, i create the two categories : customer and project Inside each category, i add an entry (customer>google, project>intranet)

    On the repositories tab of bitbucket, i have a filter bar where i can choose all categories I want and the repository list is dynamically filtered.

  32. Justen Stepka

    Official update:

    We are currently exploring various design options for ways to group repositories on Bitbucket. This item will be on our short term roadmap with an expected delivery sometime after the start of the new calendar year.

    Cheers, Justen -- Bitbucket product manager

  33. Sébastien GAUTRIN

    @rbowlby and @Gabriel Porras : Atlassian is currently working on it, as announced by Justen on October 8th.

    Official update:

    We are currently exploring various design options for ways to group repositories on Bitbucket. This item will be on our short term roadmap with an expected delivery sometime after the start of the new calendar year.

    Cheers, Justen -- Bitbucket product manager

  34. Andrew Hancox

    I've got 85 repositories already within my organisation and expect to be adding four or five a week for the foreseeable future - this is an issue that will force me to move away from bitbucket if not solved soon.

  35. Anand Kulkarni

    We have 20 repositories in bitbucket and planning add about 50 more. We definitely want to organize them within folders to make it easier for use. I am concerned how we can manage them without hierarchy. Please make this high priority.

  36. Pierre Bakker

    Sorry about the ~400 +1 emails. :)

    Like Lucas already pointed out, Atlassian Stash has a sort like functionality. It would be great if this is added to BitBucket. Currently I'm moving/migrating several (SVN) repositories to (git) BitBucket. My organisation works for several clients and ordering / grouping repositories would be a very helpful. Also authorization of users to those groups of repositories (like in Stash projects) would also be welkom.

    For now I use the suggestion posted by Leif. That will do for now. Thnx

  37. Jerome Guilbot

    Could we please get an update on this? Is this still being worked on? Last announcement said something about rolling this out at the start of the year...

    I'm trying to sell Git (via BitBucket) as a replacement for our SVN infrastructure at my company and this is making BB look like a really poor alternative considering how messy things get with many repositories.

    cc @Yohan Lebret

  38. Henry Umansky

    I really hope the +1 folks realize their comments mean nothing. Please click the "Vote for this issue" button. Your "+1" does nothing but annoy the folks who try to legitimately follow an issue.

  39. Karim Cadi

    Voted! Any news from Atlassian about this feature? Would really be great... after one year using Bitbucket, we already have to many repositories. It would make sense to gather them by apps at least.

  40. Sterling Hamilton

    @Gaston M With the repository searching being as bad as it is right now, the real problem here stems from hundreds of projects being unmanageable. Teams does not solve this. Also @Paulius Sladkevičius brings up a good point.

    One of the main reasons my Agency uses BitBucket is because our team grows slower than the amount of projects we need to version. The pricing model fits better. Sacrificing that would be counter-productive.

  41. Jerome Guilbot

    I know, their lack of communication on this is quite disappointing. I have posted several times on here asking for ETA, not even a courtesy reply. I even tweeted directly on their @ bitbucket account about this and got no answer. Instead they simply followed me back with their other account (@ atlassian), maybe just to make sure I wasn't spreading too much bad press...

    The sad thing, peeps, is that it's probably the only way to go. Let's face it, it's been more than three years since we raised this issue and nothing happened except a vague reply with an ETA that wasn't even respected, so unless we take independent action to prompt them however we can, they're not gonna do anything about it.

    Hell, nobody's even assigned to the issue!

  42. marcantonio NA

    I'm using the free tier and quite frankly, for something that is free, bitbucket is simply outstanding. As a non-paying customer, I do not pretend nor expect that features are added.

    That said, repository groups and the ability to add custom statuses to the issues workflow is a major nuisance. I understand the upselling technique here — the more powerful Jira is not even that expensive, and of course paid products get all the love from Atlassian devs. But Jira is also overly complicated for small teams.

    In the end, my team will get to the point where the free tier won't do anymore, and I will have a hard time then convincing my coworkers to stay on bitbucket, because they feel that it's largely ignored by Atlassian.

    And how can I blame them?

  43. Jerome Guilbot

    That's exactly what happened to us. We started with the free tier, liked it and upgraded to a paid account. Now we have 39 repositories (sometimes relating to the same client or project) and it's starting to look like a mess.

  44. Stefano Crosta

    I've been using BitBucket free tier for some time, and the pricing scheme (based on users rather then projects as in github) made a lot of sense so I brought it in my current company.

    But the lack of clear objectives and update plans are hurting my perception, and is not gonna push me towards atlassian products - it will just push us away altogether.

    They should just limit bitbucket to free tiers and ask people to move to atlassian as a paying tier, it would be much clearer than the current half-baked, little evolving paid plan.

  45. G. Richard Bellamy

    I opened a case directly with Atlassian Support, and received a response from @Jesse Yowell as follows, "This feature is going to be worked on in the next coming months, however, we have a few more things that are taking precedence at the moment. After these, we'll be revisiting changing the dashboard to add grouping of repos and some better UI functionality."

  46. Sébastien GAUTRIN

    @Justen Stepka on October 8th, 2013

    We are currently exploring various design options for ways to group repositories on Bitbucket. This item will be on our short term roadmap with an expected delivery sometime after the start of the new calendar year.

    Cheers, Justen -- Bitbucket product manager

    Any news on that front? It's been over 6 months since you told us that and there's been no update since that (and we are well into the new calendar year now).

    Thanks.

  47. Tim Parenti

    While the search feature of the recent fluid-width redesign does make it somewhat easier to find a repository by name, @Andrew Orton is correct in pointing out that the ability to sort this list or its results is a basic feature that has been lost in the update, completely undoing #505.

    As for repository grouping, it seems an emphasis on search is the answer we're getting, but I would argue that some sort of "directory-like" grouping approach could still help further improve the usefulness of search for these purposes.

  48. Shawn Goff

    Yes, the reason why categories or tags is important is because I can't remember the repository name, so I don't know what to search for. If instead I can show repositories with the ProjectABC tag, I have much fewer repositories to look at, so finding the right one is easier.

  49. Milos Levacic

    Agreed with @Andrew Orton and @Tim Parenti - alphabetical repo sorting is a must for easy navigation. This is a long-standing issue for being able to organize repos better - in fact, this is the issue with the most votes in your issue tracker - obviously, the devs who use your services feel it's very important to be able to manually organize repos in their own way. This is an absolute step away from that, as now, not only is there no way to browse repos if you're not sure what exact name you're searching for - you've also added unnecessary pagination, making it even harder to find stuff.

    Apart from that, the activity feed on individual repos has been pushed aside in favor of the README file (or an invitation to create one) - when in fact, an activity feed is more important for most people. Sure, for open-source projects it makes more sense to have the README stand out, while an activity feed is less important in those cases - but to be honest, I think that most open source projects are hosted on GitHub anyway, while Bitbucket is primarily used by companies who can't afford GitHub's insane pricing model when you have a lot of repos. For companies, a README file is just not as important, because it isn't accessed that often - if a new dev needs to read documentation, they'll just go ahead and find it, but an activity feed is checked far more often. Perhaps you're trying to shift Bitbucket's focus onto open-source projects with this change, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to affect the companies who use Bitbucket for private repos.

    The main design goal should be functionality and productivity, and not just prettiness - sure, the new interface may be a bit more modern with the redesign, but it's far less functional, and while I've read some mean-spirited comments in the "designer vs. developer" context (mostly on your blog post about the new design), some changes really do seem like they weren't made with functionality as the primary idea.

  50. Matt Sollars

    Well, the search is OK. It only searches the beginning of the repo name, unless I'm missing something. I've often typed part of the middle of the repo name and seen no search results.

  51. Tim Parenti

    @Matt Sollars, as far as I can tell, the search feature does search the middles of names. In fact, I believe a search for foo/bar returns all repositories with username containing foo and repository name containing bar; that is, *foo*/*bar*.

  52. Jason Watt

    @Matt Sollars no, this seems to be new with this last update. i was always frustrated with the search before. it works a lot better now, but sorting and categories definately need to be a thing. seems we are getting there though, you can now filter by code language

  53. Josh Kestrel

    It seems almost unAtlassian to not even have simple labeling functionality. I'm sure it will be implemented eventually. Roadmaps slip, or get reprioritised, it happens.

  54. Tanner Naeher

    Sent in some feedback via email [because I couldn't find a feedback form] and was asked to add it here (sorry if it duplicates anyone else's response.):

    Can you please offer a way to sort the repository alphabetically on the site like you used to? I do not like the new dashboard layout at all. Two things I need access to right away are all activity on the all repository to track my other developers (not just the most recent ones) and then all my repositories in a nice alphabetized list without pages, like the old search used to be. Basically your old home dashboard was way better, and I have issues finding the stuff I want now. The names on the most recently updated repos are too big in my opinion. I'd rather have more results than the larger text. I don't use your site from my phone and I doubt the percentage that does is not enough to justify the larger font. Make the font size responsive if I'm wrong and that's the case, but I image most developers are on a desktop when they are using this site. The rest of the changes to the site are fine, but I can't stand the new dashboard. It would be a major help to my team and myself if you could please make some improvements to its usability asap. Thanks.

  55. Sébastien GAUTRIN

    Yeah, and 9 months (October 8th 2013) passed since @Justen Stepka (BB product manager) said here that there were exploring design options, that is was on the short term roadmap, and that it had an expected delivery sometime after the start of the new calendar year (that new calendar year is 2014).

    Well we're now in the second half of that "new calendar year", and still no visible movement, sadly :(

  56. Alex Jacobsen

    This is honestly ridiculous. Given how simple the task is and how incredibly beneficial it would be I don't understand how this wasn't done overnight.

    It's 2014 the best we can do is one big long list?

  57. niclashoyer

    Sure thing. Maybe sometimes it is better to switch over to an open source alternative. At least everyone can get his hands dirty and hack on new features instead of sitting around for 4 years.

  58. Erik Calissendorff

    I just sent an email to support@bitbucket.org, not sure if that helps but this is becoming quite embarrassing.

    If they don't like to fix this issue just close the ticket with "Won't fix" instead of saying that it's in the short term roadmap since a year ago.

  59. Diego ZoracKy

    @Alex Good idea!

    I tried to contact them on twitter but i have no answer yet. Very strange their position of not even talk something about it, with more than 350 comments here asking for this feature.

  60. Clark C. Evans

    I'm not sure why they'd want to fix this ticket. Our organization has created several "teams" and we just pay the extra money to have staff in multiple teams. If they fixed this ticket, I wouldn't need the teams anymore, and Atlassian's revenue would take a hit. I can imagine quite a few organizations who have done the same thing. I think "Won't Fix" is probably the best, honest answer Atlassian could have to this ticket. Overall, bitbucket isn't that expensive, paying for a few extra teams isn't a particularly bad compromise. It's easy enough to move repositories between teams.

  61. Tanner Naeher

    That may be their reason, but it's a pretty poor excuse, imho. The main reason many people use bitbucket is that it is free. Not everyone can afford the additional costs to create teams like that. And besides, it would be pretty silly for single freelance developers (and the company I work for) to have to create teams and add developers for this feature. We have hundreds of sites and we have only one developer (me) at this time and two at our peak in the last four years. It doesn't make sense to me to make a team for every one of our clients and then add in the two developers and pay extra money to do so, but we still need a way to organize the sites. Yes we have them organized with a naming convention but being able to collapse those into folders would be a big help. And what happens if a team starts getting a large number of repositories in it. Say a major sports team is your client, you create a team for them, and they have multiple websites, iOS apps, and Android apps. Wouldn't it be nice to group these inside of a team as well?

  62. Erik Calissendorff

    Unsure if it's good or bad news but got a short reply from support regarding this issue:

    [...] It is Atlassian's policy to decline comment on items that are on our roadmap or are under consideration for our roadmap.

    Please follow the publicly available issue for more details. [...]

    Assume we'll just keep waiting then...

  63. Ivo Cazemier

    Second time here, As a suggestion: Sticking several custom tags to a repo would be a great feature! It's more informative in one glance, what the repositories contain, when tags are used. Like for instane: [app] and [web] and [cms] and so on.

  64. marcantonio NA

    At this point I don't expect them to implement it or show that they care in any way, but it's just fun to see this list getting longer and longer. :)

    This is clearly an abandoned product, but at the free tier, it's quite handy, very useful and a great bargain. I'm still grateful (a lot).

  65. Anonymous

    GitLab has repo grouping, a clean interface, and apparently a dev team interested in actively writing new features that people want.... It's starting to look better and better... Don't really want to move 40 repos over to a new system, but it is so freaking unwieldy to keep them all in BB that I'm very tempted.

  66. Brian Lee

    I can't tell you how many times I click on "Repositories" on the navigation and wished an indexed/sorted view of all my repos would load. Instead, I see a drop down of options that have secondary options that belong on a sidebar somewhere (not navigation). Even the create repo and import repo options don't belong on a navigation - navigations should not execute actions, rather navigate you to page with actionable elements (buttons, links, etc..)

    Also, the navigation UI and grouping of context makes no sense. It's not conducive to what most people are looking for. In fact, I wonder how many people actually want to view recent activities again, when they've already viewed it on their initial landing page? It's redundant information and not helpful.

  67. Scott Carpenter

    Tagging by repo will be useful for us as well, since we can identify systems and components by role or function (i.e. internal systems, customer facing apps, utilities/libraries, etc).

  68. Sebastiaan Blommers

    We were using RhodeCode before the shift to Bitbucket, as far as I know from the start it was a main feature being able to organize repositories in a group (probably folders) and I just cannot understand why this is still not available for Bitbucket.

  69. Václav Pávek

    Maybe it would not be wrong to inspire with phpMyAdmin. If I start the same name (prefix) and will be followed by an underscore and will see groupings by "prefix". The good thing is that it depends only on the naming convention and imaging alone has the thing.

    repository example_repo1 and example_repo2 => repository.jpg

  70. Ted Husted

    I agree with Václav Pávek. We use strong naming conventions with our repositories for several reasons. We have more than 100 repositories, and I never have any trouble finding the repository I want. The search feature is excellent, and I don't miss tags, labels, or hierarchies one little bit.

  71. Ahmed Omarjee

    I agree with Sebastiaan, it makes no sense that such a basic tagging/labelling feature requires so much discussion.

    Although the search feature is good and using a naming convention helps, the ability to group the repositories using tags/labels will reduce the clutter.

    Come on Atlassian!

  72. Josh Hill

    +100 user plan - no fun when everyone who has read access has to scroll through pages and pages of repositories owned by a single company wide team.

  73. Agustín Ramos

    Same here, we are counting in the hundreds of repos now. And it's not always easy associate repos with their respective projects or categories. Repo name conventions is not a solution for all our cases.

  74. Tristan Rineer

    This request has been open for almost 4 years now, and the only comment from someone at BB was over a year ago. Since it seems that 90+% of the notifications from this thread are "+1" without any constructive feedback, it appears that this request is essentially dead.

    It still has my vote, but I think I'm done "watching" the comments, and I'm probably making the move to GitLab.

  75. G. Richard Bellamy

    I'm right there with Tristan - frankly this whole thing has me very disappointed with Atlassian as a whole. This particular issue has almost an order of magnitude more votes than any other, and yet it sits fallow, with virtually no feedback or engagement from BB staff.

  76. bolduz

    This is ranked as number 2 under the issues tab ordering by votes... so why Atlassian? At least please let us know you are reading this, or tell us what is making this so impossible to be done from four years... A way to organize repos is needed once you start going over 20 or more projects in my opinion. And any feedback would be appreciated ;)

  77. Corrodias

    How do I stop receiving emails about comments on this issue? I've given up on it, but Atlassian keeps spamming me. I have tried both un-voting and un-watching.

  78. Christopher De Vries

    At AWS re:Invent I brought this issue up to Alison Huselid who is in marketing of Atlassian's developer tools, including Bitbucket. She indicated this issue really wasn't on their radar right now. I mentioned that it was one of the highest voted issues and asked her to look into it, however I am not holding my breath.

  79. Jens Schumacher

    Official update:

    Although we can not commit to a specific time-frame at this stage, I would like to clarify that the feedback Christopher got is not correct and that this issue is in fact on our radar. We are currently evaluating where it will fit onto our roadmap.

  80. Lukasz Margielewski

    Big + to @Tim Parenti for pointing out same thing I was about to write. The guys from Atlassian are so 'funny' with this. "We are currently evaluating ..." - evaluating for more than a year? C'mon - be serious....

  81. Jens Schumacher

    @Tim Parenti, I understand this is frustrating. Unfortunately things changed after Justen made that statement a year ago and the team had to adapt to different requirements. We are trying to be as transparent as possible to let you guys know what stage this is at.

    Going forward, we are looking at providing more frequent updates on the top feature requests.

    Thanks for your patience and support!

  82. Sebastiaan Blommers

    @Jens Schumacher since you say you like to be as transparent as possible, what exactly is being evaluated? Will there be a basic folder-like structure or Stash-like functionality? Is there a possible ETA (months/years)? Maybe document a bit more about the progress in the description above. A lot of people are interested in how this issue evolves, certainly because 4 years is a bit to long for such a needed and basic piece of functionality. Please commit in more detail to keep us happy.