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 (733)

  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:


    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


    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 H. Cox

    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 I currently have a local LAN server that has mirror cloned 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 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 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 submodule repositories, e.g. all the url properties in the .gitmodules files are changed from the absolute 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 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!


  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. 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.

  15. Lucas Eagleton


    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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. Vincent Kelly

    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.

  19. 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.

  20. John Roepke

    +1 I have almost 60 repositories for my various side projects. It'd be great to be able to label them or group them so I can get to specific stuff a lot faster.

  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:





    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

    @Ryan Bowlby 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).


  47. Tim Parenti

    While the search feature of the recent fluid-width redesign does make it somewhat easier to find a repository by name, @Rob Bathgate 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 @Rob Bathgate 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, 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. Adam

    It would seem with the 2nd highest vote count of all open issues this would be pretty high on their list, hope so, we've all been waiting since 2010

  60. 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.

  61. 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.

  62. 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?

  63. 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...

  64. 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.

  65. 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).

  66. Shane Edwards

    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.

  67. 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.

  68. 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).

  69. 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.

  70. Vaclav Pavek

    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

  71. 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.

  72. 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!

  73. 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.

  74. 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.

  75. 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.

  76. 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.

  77. 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 ;)

  78. 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.

  79. 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.

  80. Jens Schumacher staff

    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.

  81. 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....

  82. Jens Schumacher staff

    @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!

  83. 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.

  84. Jens Schumacher staff

    @Sebastiaan Blommers we are evaluating where this piece of work fits into our roadmap. The functionality that is being considered is more similar to Stash, although that hasn't been fully decided yet. To avoid setting expectations that we can not meet, we will steer away from committing to specific time-frames, but I can tell you that it won't be years.

  85. Yujia Li

    wow.. I'm trialling a migration from FogBugz and although Atlassian JIRA/BitBucket is much more competitive on price... it's lacking on features... basic features like this :(

  86. Diego Tejera

    I can't believe it's been over 3 years to implement such a basic feature, why would you guys spend time building other functionalities if this is what people is asking the most? No sense to me

  87. Ted Husted

    It makes perfect sense. If I was a Atlasssian product manager, I'd think carefully about implementing it too. This feature only encourages people to host even more repositories. Unlike other vendors, BB doesn't charge by the repository. If encouraging even more repositories leads to more users, then BB wins. If it leads to an explosion of repositories, without adding many more users, then BB loses. GH taps out at 125 repositories for $200 a month, and Beanstalk taps out at 300, which is 4x what I pay now. Yay status quo!

  88. Sebastiaan Blommers

    @Ted Husted I understand what you say but Atlassian does charge above an amount of users and also it's an integrated product with Bamboo and Jira, so no it does not make 'perfect sense' to me. And some like the taste of Mercurial over Git. Otherwise it would make more sense if they closed the issue instead of hanging us there for over 4 years.

  89. Ike DeLorenzo

    In this very popular request for Bitbucket, there are two separate items: (a) Projects meaning folders/projects that put repos in an organized hierarchy repos as in Stash, and (b) Tags/Labels that allow a non-hierarchical way to categorize, groups, and sort repos.

    We are actively looking at how to provide Projects; that is: functional folders that organize and contain repos.

    Tags/labels will be further down the road, but we do recognize that this is an useful way to organize repos outside of strict hierarchy/folders/projects.

    Ike DeLorenzo, PM, Bitbucket Team

  90. Jerome Guilbot

    Thanks for the update, @Ike DeLorenzo, almost un-hoped for at this stage!

    So you're effectively saying you guys are "actively looking at it". Sounds definitely better than "exploring various options" from the 2013 update...

    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

    You forgot the ETA though!

  91. Alexander Trauzzi

    @Ike DeLorenzo - Can you actually provide us with an ETA on this long overdue feature?

    "...actively looking at..." gives us very little insight as to what exactly is going on. If your update was supposed to be informational, we know no more after your post than we did before.

  92. Christopher Bensler

    Very sad, feels like the wheels at Atlassian are gummed up pretty badly. I also use the JIRA+Agile, Confluence and Stash self-hosted servers which I paid for. The progress there is not much better.

    I suggest people find a better alternative than Bitbucket or other Atlassian products. They have some good groundwork laid down but they fail on feature implementation with lack of progress and poor choices when they do finally do something. Seems the corporate machine has become unwieldy. They no longer understand what developers need.

    As someone who can't afford to pay per project or to run my own servers and who always has some private projects (what developer doesn't?), the best alternatives I have found are Gitorious, GitHub and GitLab.

    Github is out because their pricing model is too steep and doesn't factor actual usage. Between Gitorious and GitLab, GitLab is a clearcut winner so I'll be moving my operations there.

    Been waiting for Atlassian for years on many fronts, but something like this issue lasting 4 years should never happen at a competent company. It only shows that Atlassian has forgotten the value of customer loyalty.

    Good luck.

  93. Christopher Bensler

    @Michael Speth

    My comment was directed more at Atlassian and those who are tired of waiting for this issue. I intentionally did not elaborate because this is not the place.

    Personally, I don't care if you use it or not. If you don't want to take advice, that is your prerogative but please don't try to make me out as some blow hard who is just spouting. You shouldn't take my word for it anyway (or Ozum's). Do your own research. Investigate the complaints and praises and investigate the alternative options. Spend 3 or 4 years using the software so you can find out for yourself, like I did or be wise and learn from other peoples mistakes. Makes no difference to me. I'm not here to write a product review or convince anyone, only offer advice. Take it or leave it. Just don't walk in with your eyes wides shut. You've been warned. The price of the product is nothing compared to your time.

    I actually still like the JIRA product suite but that is not enough reason when it prohibits me from being productive.

    If all one needs is BitBucket, then unless you need Mercurial (Git is better anyway), then GitLab does everything that BitBucket does plus much more, including project labels and project groups that Atlassian has failed to implement in 4 years time despite an exceptionally large number of requests. Sadly no nesting yet that I know of. They are working on it, it's also open source so even if they drop the feature, I can put it in if I really want and it certainly won't take 4 YEARS. In any event, it's a far cry better than the naught that BitBucket has. It's also free as in beer for the downloaded community edition or SaaS (1Gb per repo, public or private), unless you need tech support (you ever use that? me either). They also offer Continuous Integration. BitBucket can't touch this.

  94. Michael Speth

    @Christopher Bensler Well, your criticisms are not appropriate for this issue. This issue is about requesting support for project labels. Its also inappropriate to direct people to other products. If you want to criticize Atassian and offer alternatives, that's fine, but do it in an appropriate space.

    Bitbucket + Confluence + Jira ARE free for open source projects. But thanks Gitlab propaganda, I'm sure all of us Atlassian users appreciate it.

  95. Alexander Trauzzi

    You have neither the authority nor the justification in this scenario to tell anyone where they can and can't voice their dissatisfaction. Those are rules you make up on your own and you can live by them just the same.

    It's also kind of zany to suggest that Christopher is here offering "propaganda". Everything he's said is correct. This ticket was opened in 2010 (yes, 5 years ago!) and has had numerous promises for an implementation, and yet nothing.

  96. Christopher Bensler

    Actually, my criticisms are very appropriate, especially when I have been a long time customer who has been waiting for this feature and other basics for far too long. I'm hardly the only person who is not impressed. What is not appropriate is to try to create a debate on a thread that is being watched by 650 people.

    If you are happy with Atlassian, then all you have to do is be quiet and they will ignore you just fine.

    If Atlassian is threatened by GitLab, then all they have to do is FIX THEIR PRODUCT.

  97. QuackingPlums

    Superb user trolling by Atlassian - it's clear that this isn't going to be done, I just wish they were transparent about it from the outset. Thanks whoever it was for recommending GitLab.

  98. Hayk Galstyan

    I have 16 repos and it's already getting our of hand; a mix of private, freelance and work stuff all in one place is not cool. Just switched a fresh project to since we use the Community Edition at work and it's pretty decent.

    Can we get an update on this?

  99. Francine Bray

    Really hoping this feature comes around sooner rather than later. Seems simple enough, and despite the fact that I agree with the person who said that BB isn't offering this as a solution yet to avoid the boom in repos, I think BB should be managed well enough to create a process or mechanism to stop that from happening. +1 for this and hope that Atlassian can provide for their users.

  100. Ozum Eldogan

    +1 again. We have small number of developers. Even with that small number, we have lots of repositories, because we prefer to create a repository for every sub component. (I know there are other ways to do, but this is the way my team works.) We have 70+ repositories, and I'm lost in there trying to find and organize them.

  101. Craig Newton

    @Ozum Eldogan in GitLab you can create groups, then in the groups you can add multiple repositories. Say for instance you have a system called 'Synapse' and it consists of multiple components, some written in C++, some written in Java, PHP, etc. The components could consist of a 'web-dashboard', 'video-encoder', 'crm' ... plus 20 other components. Each component is setup as a separate repo but they are all part of the 'Synapse' group. This allows a much better grouping structure. Whereas now we have a naming convention on BitBucket where we have projectname-componentname, unfortunately it makes it hard to see the group as you have to now use the search functionality to filter based on projectname and in most cases it brings back other peoples projects with a similar name. We intend to host GitLab in the cloud on a DigitalOcean instance.

  102. Lukasz Margielewski

    @x12586 They will never implement it! I follow this thread since 2 years now (or so). 2 or 3 times someone from altassian responded that they will look at it asap, but never done so nor never provided any follow-up / roadmap. This is a joke.

  103. Craig Newton

    I got a little hack/solution for this. I have been using it since the whole "we cannot use GitLab, dammit!!!" from my company.

    When creating a project that consists of multiple components, we now use a naming strategy: <project_name>-<component_name>

    To group them I use the search functionality and create permalinks like:


    Where ttcms is the name of the project, the results returned look something like this:

    ttcms-dashboard (PHP)

    ttcms-crm (C++)

    ttcms-feedreader (Java)

    I use the permalink on our Wiki to create project groups. Makes life a little simpler.

  104. Ted Husted

    +1 for Craig Newton.

    We have 30 users and 140 repositories. By using strong naming conventions, we never have any trouble finding what we want when we want it, just by using the search feature. GitLab seems nice, but under the standard plan, we'd have to pay for 70 users that we don't have (yet). We also use JIRA and Confluence, and the integration between the three is outstanding!

  105. Sebastiaan Blommers

    Atlassian can put that party where the sun doesn't shine. IMHO, they are a bunch of slackers, see how populair this ticket is, it should have been fixed. Maybe it is too difficult for them and we expect too much.

    Shame, .. shame, .. shame, ... shame .......

  106. Ike DeLorenzo

    We are currently working on a way to group repositories -- a functionality that is currently available in Stash -- in a way that addresses the needs expressed in the (many) comments above. This feature will be available soon. We have a lot of repos too, and definitely understand the need to group repos and perform meaningful operations on those groups.

    We will be posting here, and on our blog, as soon as this feature is publicly available. Thanks for your patience on this one.

    Ike DeLorenzo

    PM, Bitbucket

  107. Toby Evans

    Holishit! A response from a staff member?!
    I hope this is an ongoing thing - keep it up please, we like knowing whats going on, even if its a "nope we're not gonna do that", some kind of response is better than none.

    Even better to hear that you're working on it.

  108. Daniel Bennett staff

    Update from engineering:

    We are currently developing the implementation of Projects for Bitbucket. This implementation will be a first pass at ultimately providing the same functionality you'd see for Projects in Stash -- only it'll be in Bitbucket. Though alignment with Stash's Projects is the end-state we're shooting for the initial release will most likely not provide much more than organizational facilities. It will, however, provide the base from which we expand in the future.

    I'll have an update in the next 30 days or so with more information and a possible ETA.


    Dan Bennett, Bitbucket Development Manager

  109. Sandor Pakh

    Indeed welcome news. Just from an organizational point of view, this will be a welcome feature. Here's hoping 30-days won't turn into another three years. :)

  110. Daniel Bennett staff

    I'm changing the issue summary to remove the "labels" option from the original request. Since projects/folders are only one way to approach this problem I want to keep the request for labeling alive even after we close this request.

    For those waiting for labels please watch this new issue instead: issue #11800 "Support organization of repositories by label"

  111. Daniel Bennett staff

    Status update:

    Much of this is complete, however, we are working out some user experience issues and refining the current implementation. Long term, projects will be an important feature for teams and we will most likely continue adding capabilities over time, therefore, making sure we're not setting ourselves down a path that is incompatible with where we ultimately want to take this is worth the time spent.

    I'll be back in 2-3 weeks with another status update -- hopefully by then a realistic ETA will be available.

  112. Tim Parenti

    For those watchers still skeptical that this is finally about to happen, some news:

    The upcoming "Projects" feature was just announced on the official Bitbucket blog:

    So, we’re announcing new capabilities today that will be available soon to help you use Git at massive scale:


    • Projects to keep your repositories organized

    And TechCrunch also picked up on the press release:

    Atlassian is also announcing three major new features to Bitbucket. ... [T]he third is support for projects, which will make it much easier to organize complex Git repositories.

    I'm not going to celebrate until the feature ships, but for me, this is finally somewhat reassuring.

  113. Tim Parenti

    @Rohit Verma I'm not sure what you mean. If you're looking to "track" this feature, watching this issue is probably the best way to get updates.

    I am not an Atlassian employee, just another watcher who wanted to point out that Atlassian have finally committed much more publicly to this feature's upcoming existence than simply commenting here. So those who have been skeptical all these years may find reason to believe that this time is different.

  114. Liam Greig staff

    I've recently joined the Bitbucket team as a designer and I'm currently working through the UX for this feature. If anyone is game I'd love to show you what we have so far. Please send me a PM if you'd be interested and I'll set up some time for us to talk.

    Each call will run between 30-45 minutes and will include some questions around usability and general expectations for this feature.

  115. Tom Warfel

    "group" is too vague. It is important to be able to declare both "Repository Groups" (either within a project, or within a user's account), and also to be able to declare "groups of users with the same access privileges" (either within a project account, or within a user's account). Repository Groups should have propagating access control lists (ACL), where all repositories and nested Repository Groups inherit the ACL permissions of the encompassing group by default, but allow the defaults to be explicitly overridden at the lower hierarchical levels.

  116. Daniel Bennett staff

    Hey everyone,

    It will be a little while longer before we release this -- update in 2 weeks.


    We are dangerously close to releasing Projects, however, we've recently encountered a network problem on our infrastructure. That is bad on its own and is being remedied. What is worse, though, is that with the ever increasing use of Bitbucket these little glitches have started pushing us over the tipping point toward actual outages.

    We'll be circling the wagons for the next two weeks and giving the entire system a shakedown before we release any new features. I'll be back after the shakedown to give the new ETA for Projects.

    Also, a thank you to everyone who made themselves available to Liam to review the projects changes he was making and giving him the feedback necessary to make it better. It helped quite a bit.

  117. Christopher Dale

    Hi Dan,

    Thanks for the update! Glad your team is taking the time to get things sorted out before moving on the deployment. Seems like a reasonable thing to do :D The 10/22/2015 01:53, Dan Bennett wrote:

  118. Win Thor


    We created a new team to get around this issue, but that brought up a new issue because in order to have private repositories, we would end up getting double-charged for all of our team members because we have the same team members associated to both projects... Anyways, can't wait for the update.

  119. Sandor Pakh

    At the moment, I created a repository that just holds a markdown file. The markdown file contains a list of all our other repositories and links to them. They are grouped the way we like. Everyone just needs to remember the one repository to go to.

  120. Daniel Bennett staff


    I apologize for it being more than two weeks since the last update -- we were a bit distracted and I simply lost track of time. The good news is that projects is back in the works. As a matter of fact, the delay has given design more time to clear a few things up so hopefully not too much time was actually lost in the long run.

    Technically, projects is "easy": add a table called projects, a column in the repo table called project_id and a dropdown on the repo admin UI then it's done. It's the user experience and information hierarchy that become tricky. We have, what we believe to be, the final round of updates identified and I can now give a tentative release date of 12/15. That's really close to the holidays and if it moves out at all there's surely going to be a discussion of whether to delay until after the holidays -- I'd like to avoid that discussion entirely so I'm really pushing for that date to stick.

    I'll be back to give an update around December 1st.



  121. Daniel Bennett staff

    @Zoltán Lehóczky,

    Release one will not address what you're asking for in #12062, however, that sort of control is planned for the future. Long-term we will be adding a layer of permissions into projects that will allow you to have "project administrators" separate from "team administrators". We don't yet know what this looks like so there may be nuances to the implementation that aren't that straightforward, however, once project permissions hit the roadmap and have some design time applied we should be able to speak to #12062 more concretely.

    Note, however, that I cannot say when any of this will happen.

  122. Emanuele Baglini

    You already have a very good product that is Stash. You should copy these functionalities from it. I think that it will be very important to have the same way of grouping and administering like project in Stash.

  123. Martin Thwaites

    BitBucket is a different beast to Stash. One is aimed at On Premise, one cloud based. I've had to have similar debates at my company about using the things in both, and it just doesn't work the majority of the time. Scalability is key, as is thinking about your user experience.

    I think they've gone about this the right way. Don't just copy what you have in another product if it doesn't fit the model, spend some time and get it right. Once it's out, it's out, and it's hard to change.

  124. Emanuele Baglini

    I understand what you are saying and I'm not thinking to a copy and paste, but I'm talking about functionalities. In Stash we have a very good way to group repositories in project and we are able to administer and set permission for the whole project or a single repository. I think that this should be the way.

  125. Antonio Aversa

    Having a way to group repositories in folders, or in alternative being able to tag the repositories (with a "search by tag" option) would be a great feature for BitBucket! We are a medium-sized team (around 15 developers), having 30+ repositories and 2 projects. We would like to group them by project, as we are currently doing in Microsoft Team Foundation Server.

  126. Daniel Bennett staff

    @Emanuele Baglini Yes, long-term we'll be looking to make Projects in Bitbucket Cloud contain more features. Some would would be a bit more specific to Bitbucket Cloud such as Connect extension points; others would be the sort of thing you find in Bitbucket Server (formerly Stash) such as permissions and deployment keys. Over time, a Bitbucket Server instance and Bitbucket Cloud team will become more directly comparable (this has implications for Projects, see below).

    But first, we have to get that shell out there.

  127. Daniel Bennett staff

    Hello everyone.

    First the quick update: we are not "launching" until January, however, you will be able to use Projects before the end of the year.

    It looks like there's enough uncertainty around the launch date that we're going to wait until January to do the proper launch of Projects. However, although we're not launching for some time, we will be doing something new with this feature: opening up a public beta. We've never done a beta before, and we're still working out the details, however, it should be as simple as flipping a switch in your account settings once it's available. I'll post the instructions on how to do that when the time comes -- until then we're going to be using every minute we have until December 15th (maybe a few more) to get things as ready as possible.

    As we approach the release, there are a few things everyone should know about Projects:

    1. Projects will only be available for teams. Teams are easy enough to create and free so if you don't have one already and wish to use Projects, you'll want to create one. There are many reasons why we have made Projects a team-only feature (I mentioned one above) but, rest assured, however, that none of them are nefarious plans to get everyone to pay us more (unless you'd like to) or because it was easy (because it certainly wasn't). Most of it had to do with user experience and future goals.

    2. About that user experience... When you enable projects the Bitbucket interface will change in some subtle ways. Some things will move, be renamed, improved or deleted. Most of the changes will not be controversial but we are aware that not everyone will be super happy with everything. (I know I wasn't immediately, but now I like where we landed).

    I'll be back in about two weeks with the beta information.



  128. Bob van Toorn


    Looking forward to seeing this in action as well... Also, I agree with @Garret Wilson, but am too lazy to make a ticket :). Thanks for your work on this so far. The result of this will be deciding in our (25 member) team's decision move to a paid Bitbucket.

  129. Garret Wilson

    @Bob van Toorn , there already is an issue #7788 for sorting repositories. It has languished for two years. It may have morphed into this issue #2323. It will be pitiful if Atlassian creates some complicated system for grouping stuff but in the end not allow us to do simple sorting in a list. We shall see---but since there has been little feedback from Atlassian on #7788, I'm not getting my hopes up.

  130. Daniel Bennett staff


    We've invited some of the people who worked with Liam earlier to a private beta starting 2015-12-14. The public beta is being prepped for launch today. I'll be back with more information at 00:00 UTC (+/- an hour or two).



  131. Jacob Williams

    I see the feature in my teams features tab - but enabling it does not work. The switch turns green, but it is off when I return to the page.

    I had no idea this was coming so I am now really anticipating the little green button working.

  132. Daniel Bennett staff

    Hello everyone,

    The beta is live. 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.

    We'll be doing a formal feedback process in January once this is officially live, however, until then, feel free to post any feedback as comments on this issue. We have a backlog of clean-up work already lined up for the next few weeks but we'll be paying attention.

    Note: When testing this, you're actually testing two things that are new: projects and the beta features support itself, so please let us know if you encounter problems with either aspect.

  133. Daniel Bennett staff

    @Jacob Williams a. that shouldn't happen please let me know if you continue to have problems; b. you should enable projects on your account, not on your team. Behind the scenes all teams now have projects. The beta opt-in only controls who sees them.

  134. Matt Dane

    I'm attempting to move a private repository from the default public untitled project, into a new private project, and I get the error "Public repositories must allow public forks." when the repository was already set to private

  135. Jason Durheim

    Minor bug, if you change the key for a project, the link to the project in the 'Recently Viewed' dropdown won't get updated, you'll get a 404 trying to use the shortcut. Visiting that project via other methods doesn't update the short cut in that dropdown either, so the link ends up perpetually being a 404.

    Edit - Eventually it seems to have sorted itself out, although not sure what prompted it.

  136. Jacob Williams

    @Daniel Bennett I tried again from the first place I found it and it still didn't work. However I went to my account and that worked, it stayed green and there was some kind of extra flash of something that I didn't see from the team screen. In any case, if it doesn't work it probably shouldn't appear under Manage Team => Manage Features. After enabling it on my account, it now appears enabled on the team management page as well.

  137. Jacob Williams

    I see the same problam as @Matt Dane. I can move a private repo into a private project, by using the "Add repost to project" view, however once they are added, any attempt to save their details results in the private forks on public project error. I suspect it is because the private repo checkmark is disabled (and checked), and so the form validator is thinking it is not check rather than using the saved value.

  138. Jason Durheim

    Is there supposed to be a shortcut somewhere in settings or otherwise (couldn't find one) to edit the repos in a project after creation? You can add 'move-repositories' to the project URL to get back to the screen you'd do during creating the project to add more repos, but couldn't find another way if you missed repos on initial project creation.

  139. José Arcángel Salazar Delgado

    It´s a bit difficult at first, but now I understand how works. Everything is working as expected. The only problem I see it's when you delete projects, the project name remains in the project menu for some time. Also, I don't see any way to add existing repositories to existing projects from the project page. You need to go to the repository page to do the change.

  140. Jacob Williams

    When try to save a Repo's settings pane with any project other than my default, I get the "public projects must allow public forks" error. However if I manually un-disable the private repository checkbox in the inspector, then uncheck and check it, the drop down for forks reappears and I can save the repo.

    Interestingly, even when i get the error, some of the settings from the form save anyway, although I can't tell on that page - only if I go away and come back.

  141. Daniel Bennett staff

    @Matt Dane @Jacob Williams that's an unfortunate case of a last-minute JavaScript nicety completely ruining the experience. You can save it into a public project and make the project private later to work around the problem. Alternatively, we're going to be deploying a fix in the next hour or so and you can just wait for that.

  142. Tom Roche

    @José Arcángel Salazar Delgado: "I don't see any way to add existing repositories to existing projects from the project page. You need to go to the repository page to do the change."

    Where is the UI on a repo page to add it to an existing project? I have created a team, and a project for that team, so I see the UI

    • to create teams and projects

    • to create a new repo in a project

    But I see neither UI

    • on a repo page to add that repo to a project

    • on a project page to add an existing repo to that project

    What am I missing?

  143. Jason Durheim

    @Tom Roche should be able to do it from the repo details page, right under where you'd change the name of the repo. Or you can, for now, use my hack and add 'move-repositories' at the end of the project URL and you'll get the check box method for all repos not already in that project.

    Edit: I haven't yet found anything directly in the UI around the projects that allows you add/remove repos from that project apart from the above hack.

  144. Tom Roche

    @Tom Roche: "I see neither UI

    • on a repo page to add that repo to a project

    • on a project page to add an existing repo to that project

    What am I missing?"

    @Jason Durheim: "should be able to do it from the repo details page, right under where you'd change the name of the repo."

    Alas, no: fields @ (which is Repository details for that repo) are

    • Name
    • Size
    • Description
    • Access level
    • Landing page (good to see that one! it solves a problem I've had for awhile)
    • Website
    • Language
    • Main branch
    • Google Analytics key

    @Jason Durheim: "Or you can, for now, use my hack and add 'move-repositories' at the end of the project URL"

    @ I see

    Move existing repositories
    Whoops! Looks like you don't have any repos to move.

    Is that the wrong URI? Or am I just not beta enough ?-(

  145. Jason Durheim

    @Tom Roche Not sure what the issue might be there then. The project selection should be right under the name in repo details. If you try creating a new repo it looks like it will show up in the same spot during creation, that might be the other thing to look at

    For the URL edit, were there existing repos already that weren't in a project, or present in other projects? That's about the only thing I could think of that might cause that message. I had maybe 30 repos when I started moving stuff around, spread across 4-5 projects now. The url hack allowed me to add a few that weren't in projects at all and from other projects at the same time.

    The only thing I've got now is I don't see a way now to create or move a repo and not have it be part of one of the projects. That one really isn't a big deal though, just something I noticed as I was organizing things.

  146. Tom Roche

    @Tom Roche: "@ I see

    Move existing repositories
    Whoops! Looks like you don't have any repos to move.


    @Jason Durheim: "were there existing repos already that weren't in a project, or present in other projects?"

    I currently own/admin |repos| > 50, none of which are associated with any projects, as I never had any projects before. I just now

    1. created a team=theteamthatistom for which I am {admin, owner, sole member} (as the name suggests :-)
    2. created a project for that team

    and I am currently attempting to group some of my existing repos into that project. Do I need to associate the repos with the team first? If so, I'm not seeing UI for that, either.

  147. Jason Durheim

    @Tom Roche Yeah, I'm guessing the repos not being under the team are the issue then. Everything I've worked with was all in/owned by the team. I'd have to let someone else comment on if/how you can move to another owner. Our company is very new to Git/BitBucket (and I hadn't used it either in the past), so not sure whether you even can.

    If you created some test repos under the team, then I'm guessing you'll start seeing the things the others of us have so far.

  148. Tom Roche

    @Daniel Bennett: "Projects will only be available for teams."

    @Daniel Bennett: "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"

    I have just now (since the announcement)

    1. enabled Projects on my account.
    2. created a team for which my account is the admin.
    3. created a project for that team.

    So I should be able to add one or more repos of mine to my project, no? If so, how does one associate previously-created-by-oneself repos with one's team's projects? If not, what am I missing?

  149. Zachary Davis

    Hi all -- we're aware of the need to be able to access the "Move repositories" screen from something other than the blank state. We'll be adding this soon.

    @Tom Roche I believe the problem you're running into is that you want to move repositories from an individual account to a team account. Currently there's no way to easily do this en masse. This is a limitation we're working to address, but it's a sticky problem. In the meantime you'll need to transfer a repository from your account to the team account -- upon acceptance of the transfer you should be able to select a project.

    Thanks all for your patience as we iron out the kinks. This is the first time we've done a beta release like this. We're very excited about the possibilities this affords us, but there may be some bumps along the way.

  150. Alexey Borisov

    New user overview page has many advantages, but needs some option for ordering... I can't see how i can get now full repositories list in "Recently updated" order, like in previous overview page (only in team overview).

    Also option for create project title page or readme/wiki associated with projects would be great in the feature.

  151. Craig Newton

    It looks good guys, thanks so much.

    Just a few things missing: ability to add more existing projects to a project visibility of project description for each project in the list * reorder based on most recent update


  152. Rupert Madden-Abbott

    We are now using this and it is fantastic. However, we now have several projects in our team, but most team members see nothing other than "Create a team" in the "Projects" drop down menu, in the top nav bar. We restrict which team members are allowed to create repositories and it seems only those with this permission, can see the list of projects in this drop down. Is this problem related to this bug:

  153. Jakob Macke

    Maybe I am really dumb here but I can't see anything to have changed in bitbucket, and find no way to active project or sort repos? Does one need to sign up for the beta, and if so, how?

  154. Patrick Mead

    @Jakob Macke As Dan mentioned this feature is already implemented for all repositories on bitbucket, it is not an opt in thing in terms of architecture. All your repositories currently reside in a single untitled project without you knowing it. However you do need to enable it in your account to be able to view/see the change.

    You can do this by going to your account settings, manage features and clicking the check box in there.

  155. Martin Zajíc

    Works fine I have two improvements:

    • If you have empty project and choose "add existing repositories", there are all repos but no search/filter, this is annoying
    • also if there are some repos would be nice to have "add more repositories" option

    Also it's bit outside projects, but simple labeling repositories would be nice, I have lots of single repo projects and would be nice to label them by clients or type of project.

  156. Jakob Macke

    This is looking great, thanks for that. I am confused by one thing, though-- I have one repository which is owned by me (or specifically my team), and it does not show up in 'Untitled project', and also does not show the option of changing projects in the administration settings-- any idea of what might be going on?

  157. Christopher Hamilton

    Update on the below in case it helps anybody:

    When transferring ownership I had to leave the Projects drop-down blank to avoid the error "Select a valid choice. That choice is not one of the available choices."

    I also had to go into each repository and change the Group access permissions - I hadn't set those since it was always only me working on the repos and owned by my Individual Account.

    Once those were setup the transfers took place immediately. I could then add the repositories to the created Projects as a second step (and not during the ownership transfer step).


    I have a Team that I created a while ago but most of the repositories were under my Individual account.

    I have 2 separate issues though:

    1. A repo I transferred from Individual to Team isn't showing the Accept Request under the Team. Where do I find this? I don't see any notification nor email.
    2. When trying to transfer some repositories from Individual to Team, I get the following error "Select a valid choice. That choice is not one of the available choices."

    Any advice is much appreciated.

    Ace work on the feature btw!

  158. Milos Levacic

    @Alexey Borisov Ah, that's true, I missed that somehow, thanks! But I can see a problem with that kind of rendering - everything is merged into one line, and links aren't displayed as links. We specifically want to link the same project within Confluence and JIRA, and there's no way to do that at the moment (I guess the description could be rendered when looking at a project's repositories or something, since that seems to be the "central" place for a project - Markdown-enabled of course:))

  159. Dieter Blomme

    1 thing I've noticed: When I filter on the (seeminly new) dashboard on owner, the project filter isn't adapted, it still shows projects from all owners. That should be amended IMO

  160. David Bates

    So just want to be sure.. this is only for "team" projects right.. so all the projects I have as a "user" (not in the team) will not have the ability for this awesome new Category feature correct?

  161. Tom Roche

    @Daniel Stevens: 'documentation page for Projects'

    Thanks, Dan. Perhaps you could (as a 'doc guy') comment on implications for self-documentation:

    That Projects doc restates one thing from this thread:

    If you want to add a repository to a project it must already be owned by the team[,
    not by your individual account].

    That doc also links to an important doc regarding repo linkage, e.g., links to resources (code, docs, issues) from other resources:

    changing a repository's ownership, changes the URL you (and others) use to access
    the remote repository from your local system. For example, if a repository is
    owned by the thecodemeister['s personal account] and the repository's name is coolcode,
    the URLs used to access the repository are the following:
    After transferring coolcode from the thecodemeister to the newowneract [team]
    account, the URLs look like this:

    So if you've got a repo owned by your individual/non-team account, in which you've been maintaining wiki or other pages documenting your code (etc), and you are now considering transferring that repo to a team account in order to get this Projects goodness (which you cannot get from an individual account--why is that?):

    1. If you have been using the appropriate relative-path syntax[1] for intra-repo references, such links should survive transfer.
    2. If you have been using absolute paths for either intra- or inter-repo references, such links will require maintenance. (sed is your friend :-)

    [1]: Note BB working relative-path syntax seems to have changed over the past few years, hence I use this repo to verify what works empirically. Dan can perhaps point to the official documentation for BB relative-pathing.

  162. Daniel Bennett staff

    @Rupert Madden-Abbott yes, that would appear to be related. Once a team member has visited a project it should appear as a visited project in the dropdown, however.

    @Patrick Mead soon(ish)

    @Martin Zajíc labeling is a separate feature but one that we have our eye on. We feel labels fill an important role orthogonal to projects.

    @Dieter Blomme yep. The left to right nature of the filters implies a hierarchy that we're not honoring but should.

    @Jakob Macke, @Florian Girardey can you message me the repositories you are having trouble with?

    For anyone popping in late, note that you must have any repositories you wish to add to a project owned by a team before they can be organized. Bulk transfer of repositories is on our to-do list for launch, until then, you'll have to transfer one repository at a time.

  163. Kegan Maher

    I'm seeing the same issue as @Jakob Macke and @Florian Girardey:

    When I first activated the Projects beta, all repositories owned by my team except for one were added to the default project.

    When viewing my team's list of repos, this one repo is the only one that is blank in the Project column. When viewing settings for this one repo, I see no UI to assign the Project.

    All other repos for the team are working as expected.

    @Daniel Bennett just PM'd you some details.

  164. Jakob Macke

    Hi (im JH M/mlab)

    JH M, Florian Girardey can you message me the repositories you are having trouble with?

    this repository

    does not appear in any project.

    I have 5 such repositories, all of which are private, but I made this one public, private ones are e.g.

    SOme of the repositories I transferred from my personal account mlab to my team account mackelab, others were directly created in mackelab.

    I was not able to identify anything about these repositories that is ‘different’ about them compared to the 60 repositories for which everything worked fine…



  165. Rajeev J Sebastian

    This is a great addition to Bitbucket. Thanks for this!

    It would be really great if a move-repositories button is available on existing projects. Currently, the move-repositories is displayed right after creating a project (or by adding /move-repositories/ to the project URL). If there is a button for that on the project page or the sidebar, it would be really useful and help to (re)organize projects.

  166. Rajeev J Sebastian

    I'm a member of 3 teams, and it was really confusing with three "Untitled Project" in the menu. Maybe the default should be something related to the team name? For e.g. "My Team Projects" or so?

  167. Andrew Pan

    If you don't know how to accept a repo transfer, read on: when you initiate transfer of a repo from an individual user account to a team, don't select anything from the dropdown under "Select the project to which you would like to move this repository:" see screenshot I selected a project created earlier and then saw a error "Select a valid choice. That choice is not one of the available choices." however when I went to the repo transfer page I saw a transfer pending message. I didn't receive transfer notification email nor could accept the transfer. @Daniel Bennett this might be a bug

  168. Rupert Madden-Abbott

    @Daniel Bennett Unfortunately, that is not my experience. I've visited several projects, but the "Projects" dropdown menu remains empty, apart from a button inviting me to create a team. The only way I can see the projects is either via the team page (which is less useful because the "Teams" dropdown is also empty) or via the filters on the main page. We are using the filters and find them perfectly adequate but the empty drop down menus have caused some confusion, as they are much more prominent.

  169. p14n

    I've tried enabling this feature, but although the slider moves to enabled, refreshing the screen shows it disabled. There doesn't appear to be a way of saving the change.

  170. Obi-Wan Kenobi

    I am unable to create a project. I click "Create Project" fill out the form, click the Create Project button. The page refreshes, but no project has been created and there was no error displayed. Also, the Owner field is empty and when I try to add an owner it just says "No matches found". Perhaps that is the problem? I have logged out and back in, but that did not help.

    I am on OS X 10.11. I tried it in Chrome (47.0.2526.106 (64-bit)), Safari (9.0 (11601.1.56)), and Firefox (42, and 43.0.1).

    Perhaps because I am not a Team admin? But then why would it let me try to create a project if I could not create it?

    UPDATE (28 Dec 2015): My account was made an admin, and now I am able to create projects. Seems like it should have told me I could not create projects if I did not have that capability. Or disallowed me to even visit the create project page.

  171. Daniel Stevens staff

    @Tom Roche I'm looking through your comment and I believe you are correct about relative links inside your repository are correct. When you change ownership the primary links which will need to be changed are: 1. Links to the repository itself. 2. Origin links to local clones.

    I really like the example repo you linked. I will add a task to my backlog to write a good set of relative linking documentation as we don't really have that covered very well at the moment.

    Happy coding, Daniel Stevens

  172. Tom Roche

    @Tom Roche: 'BB working relative-path syntax seems to have changed over the past few years, hence I use this repo to verify what works empirically. Dan can perhaps point to the official documentation for BB relative-pathing.'

    @Daniel Stevens: 'I will add a task to my backlog to write a good set of relative linking documentation'

    Because often "an LOC is worth a thousand words," feel free to just fork that repo: not only does it have the advantage of being (almost) "self-documenting," it would also help to prevent regression due to changes in render code.

  173. Michael D. Adams

    @Daniel Bennett First, I am glad this feature is finally getting some traction. I am disappointed though that it is only for teams and not users.

    Could you clarify how you envision its use by users that just want to organize their repositories and don't otherwise need teams?

    Are we supposed to create a team just for our user and then put all our repositories in that team? It seems like that would be a hassle as we'd have two public identities (user and user-specific team). For example, if someone follows a link to my user (like the one put at the top the comments in this thread) they wouldn't see my repositories. They would have to know to look under teams and then figure out which team I am using as a user-specific team.

  174. Johan Nilsson

    I agree. I run a one-man company and I have many repositories and would love to be able to organize them without having to create a team. I have quite many personal repositories, too, and they get mixed up together with my company's.

  175. Tom Roche

    @Michael D. Adams, and anyone else interested in seeing Projects (and Labels) for users as well as teams:

    • see/vote Issue #12182.
    • comment about any {problems, work} created by the current requirement to transfer user-account repos to team-account repos. Issue #12182 currently discusses lack of bulk transfer, creation of separate identities, and breaking of links due to change of repo URI. Have I missed anything? If so, comment, and I'll edit the FR.
  176. Sergei Lissovski

    Our company currently is looking for a solution to host a lot of our private repositories and so far absence of this feature is pretty much the only thing that is keeping us from moving everything to paid version of bitbucket. We really hope that this feature is going to be added soon so for us then decision making is going to be a no-brainer.

  177. Zachary Davis

    @Scott Palmer Thanks for the feedback. As you've noted, properly namespacing repos under projects instead of teams would require changing the url, which would be a fairly disruptive change. After careful consideration we made the decision, for now, to not do this and live with the limitations it imposes. This doesn't necessarily mean it's not something we'd like to do eventually, it's just not something we're planning to implement right now.

  178. Heath Provost

    Response to previous comment:

    "The current implementation shares a repository namespace for the team. (Creating a repo, I get an error "<teamname> already has a project with this name.") The namespace should be per project. E.g. I would be able to have a "WebPage" repository in two different Projects that are completely unrelated."

    Disagree. The current implementation is correct imo. Having a per-project namespace would complicate moving repos between project folders (require renaming in the event of name conflicts). It also makes it trivial to enable/disable the feature without fear of name conflicts arising.

  179. Scott Palmer

    "Having a per-project namespace would complicate moving repos between project folders"

    That's the equivalent of saying subdirectories in filesystems make no sense because it would complicate moving files between them. It's absurd.

  180. Kristoffer Peterhänsel

    For quick adaption it is absolutely simpler that projects don't change the path. But I agree that each project having a namespace of their own (like Stash had - not sure if that was changed with after it became "Bitbucket server") makes more sense. So you can have project with the same layouts.

  181. Rupert Madden-Abbott

    "That's the equivalent of saying subdirectories in filesystems make no sense because it would complicate moving files between them. It's absurd."

    I don't think Heath is saying that it makes no sense. It definitely makes sense to have a project namespace but that does not mean that there isn't a disadvantage to doing this. It is the exact same disadvantage you have when you have referenced a file location in some documentation and then need to remember to update the reference when moving a file between subdirectories. If the URL of a repository includes the the project, then all remotes/documentation references need to be updated. That makes it harder to move repositories between projects, especially since the URL could be quite public.

    I think that those who do not like a project level name space would like projects to work more like tags/labels and less like folders/directories. However, there is a separate issue (11800) to look at adding labels so it's not clear to me that projects should also function like labels.

  182. Scott Palmer

    "If the URL of a repository includes the the project, then all remotes/documentation references need to be updated."

    But only when you choose to opt-in to using this new feature. In your example, no existing documentation needs to change until you make the choice to move an existing repository into a project, and any new documentation can account for project names in the URL if you use the project feature going forward.

    Having tags/labels could also be useful, but as you mention, it is a separate issue.

    I've changed my mind a bit though. The namespace shouldn't be based on the Project. I think supporting a general hierarchical structure like a normal filesystem for repositories, would work best. Then in addition to that you can have Projects, which are a different concept. When you add a repository to a project, that repository still has a unique path, but where now that amounts to a single repo "name", you would use a repo "path" instead. You should be able to have the exact same repository in multiple Projects. Right now a repository can only be in one Project at a time and I'm not sure that restriction is useful from the end user point of view. (I would certainly want to have multiple labels/tags per repository, as far as that feature is concerned.)

    This also solves Heath's complaint, as the namespace would not be per-Project. If you wanted it to be, you would just make a folder for each project as well.

  183. Christopher De Vries

    My God... So many years have passed, and now it's resolved. It's hard to let go of not just the bug, but the community that developed around it. You have been the constant around me as I have watched my children grow, as I have changed jobs, as I have moved. It's almost hard to say goodbye.

    Thank you.

  184. Joe Constant

    Why do you have to grant CREATE permissions to users in order for them to have the ability to READ the project list? (eg if a user goes to a project URL, they get access denied unless they have the ability to create repositories on that team).

  185. Sébastien GAUTRIN

    It seems I missed something, or the official announcement for this features gives false information: indeed, the announcement indicates that , as a team admin, I can “Set access rights to projects”. When I saw the announcement after having tested projects since December, I rushed to my team account and individual projects to see if I could indeed do that, but to no avail. And looking at the documentation linked in the announcement (and previously linked here, which by the way still mentions that “A note about projects as an opt-in feature” while it's now out of beta) actually still quite clearly explains that access rights to projects depends on accesses to the team and accesses to individual repositories.

    Does this “Set access rights to projects” only actually covers the “This project is private” checkbox? Or is it a feature still under development which has been announced by mistake? (I really hope for the later, as for our process, it would be really nice to restrict repository creation to specific projects)

  186. Alastair Wilkes staff

    Hi @Sébastien GAUTRIN, good catch on the docs! We've taken care of that.

    Does this “Set access rights to projects” only actually covers the “This project is private” checkbox?

    Yes - for now, the public/private checkbox is the only permission. That said, we do plan to add more permissions to projects, although we don't have an ETA at this time. Thanks for the specific feedback about your desired workflow!

  187. Sébastien GAUTRIN

    Thanks for the answer, I had been quite surprised to see that in the announcement as it had not been mentioned here. About the desired workflow I had developed it more in this ticket a while ago as well if you want to check it.

    Having projects now is a huge relief in itself already though, particularly now that our team has grown enough that it r really had become a hassle to have devs fork in their own account due to constant access management required for them to stay under the 5 access limit (and forking in the team account wasn't really possible without grouping).

    Can't wait for permissions to be added as well!

  188. Antoine Pietri

    The way you "solved" this issue is incredibly disappointing for me. I could not have imagined a worst way of solving it.

    Teams were the only place I did not need this feature since the repositories were already organized by "what they were for" (the team in question). I of course realize how useful it can be for some teams, but this feature is much more useful for individual users in my opinion.

    All my teams have a pretty restricted set of organized repositories, while my personal repositories are a huge mess and the only reason I wanted this feature was to organise my own repositories.

    Can we please have some info on what you are planning to do for individual users concerning groups of repositories?

    On a side note, I can't find a way of having top-level repositories. This is also disappointing as some repos do not fit in any particular category and should not need an additional indirection / namespace to be accessed.

  189. Nick Palmius

    @Antoine Pietri, the simplest solution would be to create a personal team to put all your repositories into (a bulk transfer would be useful). If you change your personal bitbucket handle, then create the team with the same handle then the change should be transparent to any cloned repositories. I have to agree with you though, that forcing individual users to create a team to use this feature is a bit strange.

  190. Alexandre Macabies

    I second @Antoine Pietri's opinion on this matter. There is currently no way of grouping the dozens of personnal respositories I have in Bitbucket, and at the same time, my teams' repositories were already regrouped/classified as there were already owned by the team itself.

  191. Antoine Pietri

    Digging more into this new feature makes me wonder if it has even remotely been tested at all. returns a 500 when browsing in incognito mode, and tells "this team doesn't have any projects at all" even though this account is not a team. Although lists 4 projects under the "Public Issue Tracker" project, none of them appear in (note the completely inconsistent URL scheme here) or in (which doesn't even list the project). Even though is a public project that can be seen by any user, it requires to be logged in to be shown, else it redirects to The "Projects" link isn't in bold here: but it works when clicking on "Followers" etc. And I've only been trying to click on random links for 3 minutes.

  192. Aaron Harnly

    Thanks so much to the team for this feature – having this available has made it possible for our ~40-person engineering team to adopt Bitbucket.

    One question – it looks as though projects are not yet supported in the REST API, is that correct? I was really hoping to use the API to automate the migration of hundreds of repos from Stash (where they are organized in projects) to Bitbucket, but it looks like this won't be possible.

  193. Aaron Harnly

    For anyone else following along, a POST to the following URL does in fact move repos between projects. Oddly, I found that this failed until the project already had at least one repository in it.

    curl --silent --user '<myteam>:<mytoken>' -X POST -H 'Content-Type: application/json' --data '{"repo_ids":["repo-uuid-string"]}' '!api/internal/teams/<myteam>/projects/<myproject>/repositories/'

    Of course this is to an internal API and hence not supported or encouraged by our friends at Bitbucket.

  194. Tom Roche

    @Aaron Harnly: thanks for researching and reporting this. One more question: is there Bitbucket API for transferring a repo from one's personal account to one's team account? Why I ask:

    Many (perhaps most) folks on this thread will be moving repos from a personal account to a team account to obtain the Project functionality (which is not currently available for personal accounts). Some of us will be moving lots of repos. For each repo R in this usecase, one must

    1. transfer R from personal account to team account
    2. include R in the target Project

    (Unless I'm missing something--am I?) Aaron Harnly has shown there is internal/unsupported API for step 2. But the whole usecase could be automated if there was also API for step 1, hence my question.

    Apologies if this is a FAQ, but I'm not seeing anything

  195. Aaron Harnly

    @Tom Roche It looks like this page allows it in one fell swoop:<my-team>/projects/<my-project>/add-personal-repositories

    and that it made the same POST call from my previous comment. I tried doing the transfer-and-assign-to-project with just that curl, but it didn't seem to work right away – probably due to the need to accept the transfer of ownership. I won't investigate further right now as it's not needed for my team, but I'd suggest poking with a recording of network calls on that page if you want to automate it.