Issues

Issue #5022 wontfix

Forked Repository's Description not Visible if there is already a README file displayed

edgimar
created an issue

My fork of landslide has a description that explains what the improvements are it makes over the cloned upstream repository. It is not possible for users to see this description at all when viewing the fork's web-pages, and thus users are unable to know what is better.

(fwiw, I think the old bitbucket theme was much more functional -- I'd like it if this functionality could be preserved even with the new theme/'look').

Comments (6)

  1. mcc

    This is a BIG problem for me! I have about 10-20 repositories which I keep separate only by the descriptions. Each repo has a README file which has nothing to do with the repo it is contained in-- rather it is a copy of the README for the underlying game engine my projects use. So now if you look over my repo lists, you have about 20 cryptic names and no explanations of what anything is, and the descriptions I typed out are displayed NOWHERE.

    Ideally, I would like : - To display or have the option to display my description above BOTH the overview and wiki pages - An option to hide/ignore the README, because for some repositories it's irrelevant and possibly misleading - An option to list the descriptions in the per-user "repositories" list at (for example) bitbucket.org/runhello, or to have a page I can link to which is my repositories list plus descriptions, because what on earth is anyone supposed to do with the short repository names?

    -- in other words, ideally I would like the functionality back that the BitBucket website used to have before all these redesigns! But even if this is not possible I need my descriptions to be displayed somewhere, right now they don't appear on the site at all.

  2. Marcus Bertrand staff

    Sorry, we intentionally made the decision to remove description if you have a README file in the root of your repository. The purpose of a README in the root of a repository for the vast majority of users is to describe the contents of that repository in depth. In the case of Forks, this is an unfortunate side-effect. For the other issue from mcc, this just doesn't fit the use-case for the README.

    At this time, we don't plan on changing this.

  3. edgimar reporter

    It's a pity that you close the report so quickly when it clearly is an issue, and will affect the useability of bitbucket as a platform. If there is indeed a problem with forks, then I would hope your backend code is not so rigid that it's impossible to add an exception for this case. Do as you wish, but you shoot yourself (or Atlassian as a company) in the foot by ignoring legitimate complaints of users.

  4. mcc

    I think it's really, really unacceptable that you, as a VCS hosting provider, are dictating the actual contents of my repository. It is not your business what is or is not in my README file— in many cases this is not even something I have control over!

  5. Log in to comment