Since some files can get fairly large, and are altered over time, you must view source to get a sense of what's going on. Being able to comment in source there is a huge time saver, as otherwise we need to dig through history to find a spot where we can comment (and then you possibly loose context).
I’ve found myself wanting this, when noticing something weird in my local clone and needing to hunt down the commit in order to comment. In general I find the navigation from file to history to files not always as easy as hgweb.
+1 Being a the head of the web team means I have to do a lot of code reviews. One type is the more larger scale with the whole team but the other type involves me reviewing the code bases every now and again. Would be amazingly useful to not have to switch between source (when I need the larger picture) and commit history to place comments!
This is a bad hole in the current system. What I am really looking for is the ability to do a code review, with many comments, against a particular version of the file(s), and then have the assignee work through them one at a time. It feels like "Code Review" should be a first class concept in Bitbucket.
+2 (for me and my team-mate). If Atlassian disagrees with the need for this feature, it would be great if they took effort to explain. If we are happy with Atlassian, once our project is ready to start up, we will consider switching to the paid plans. If we are unhappy and want to have a professional paid code collaboration tool, we will not consider Atlassian as the provider.
Just started using bitbucket, and it was my first question when trying my first pull request... how is this not possible?
We're happy so far with bitbucket but this is definitely one thing in the "bad" column when it comes to decide on switching to paid plan.