Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

blog.bitbucket.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 292 posts

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#101

Post by LordIllidan »

thomasvendetta wrote: post #12

To the bitbucket team: Please keep on doing what you are doing. Your service and this new redesign is awesome, and my team and myself wouldn't be where we are without you. We're a small team of young developers working on a startup for the past few months. We haven't launched yet so we're obviously not profitable, but the fact that you've enabled us to make it as far as we have also ensures that when we are in a posi…

I agree 100%. Github is superb for public projects, but for private projects it is overpriced.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#102

Post by sneak »

citricsquid wrote: post #81
zaroth wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So off topic, but... Has anyone ever tried to implement a 'crowd-correct' feature where a reader could do something like correct "then->than", and if enough users made the same correction (a couple high-rep users, or more low-rep users) it would stick. I supposed the biggest challenge would be user abuse -- changing even just one word can completely change the meaning of a comment, and yet the comment would still be…

This sounds like a really great idea, I think the simplest way that would avoid abuse is if fixes were sent to the user so they could change it, but instead of needing to edit the comment manually (copy change -> remove old -> paste) they can view a diff and either "accept" or "reject". It wouldn't be perfect but it would be better than people needing to reply (like I did).

This works well for non-realtime stuff (e.g. this is how OKCupid does crowdsourced profile edits), but in this instance dkhenry may not see these suggestions for some time (and, in your proposed solution, have an item sitting in the edit queue for approval), while hundreds of people are getting distracted by his typo in the meantime.

You have to be very careful, though, because there may be legal (and definitely social) ramifications for changing a user's submitted content without consent. I know it absolutely enrages me when Flickr auto-lowercases an all caps comment I try to post. ("lazer cat!@!" doesn't have quite the same oomph as "LAZER CAT!@!")

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#103

Post by LordIllidan »

lee wrote: post #96
sergiotapia wrote: post #89

I wrote a blog post on BitBucket workflow (obviously now it's outdated) and the BitBucket team sent me a free tshirt! http://www.dreamincode.net/forums/blog/1267/entry-3659-visua... I love their website and how you can create free private repos. Good business practice: Unlimited private projects, limited contributers on private projects. Win-win Github is just greedy.

>Github is just greedy. No, Github is a business. BitBucket is offering free private accounts as a loss leader, not out of the kindness of their hearts. This is their strategy for competing with GitHub. A $7/month subscription for private github repos is well worth it.

7$ a month for 5 private repos is not worth it all. I acknowledge that Github is a business but I am not about to pay a lot of money for hosting all my repositories, when I can do the same on Bitbucket for free. And when the team grows enough that I'd have to pay Bitbucket, I'll do so willingly.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#104

Post by giulianob »

kkowalczyk wrote: post #100
matwood wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

free private repositories for small teams is a great way to draw people in. Same thing here. I used to pay for github for a private repo for code to a couple of apps I sell. Once I found BB, it was a no brainer to switch over.

If free private repos is the only thing that BitBucket offers over GitHub, then they'll not be in business for long. You cost them money.

Mercurial support is what has helped BitBucket a lot.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#105

Post by pbreit »

lee wrote: post #96
sergiotapia wrote: post #89

I wrote a blog post on BitBucket workflow (obviously now it's outdated) and the BitBucket team sent me a free tshirt! http://www.dreamincode.net/forums/blog/1267/entry-3659-visua... I love their website and how you can create free private repos. Good business practice: Unlimited private projects, limited contributers on private projects. Win-win Github is just greedy.

>Github is just greedy. No, Github is a business. BitBucket is offering free private accounts as a loss leader, not out of the kindness of their hearts. This is their strategy for competing with GitHub. A $7/month subscription for private github repos is well worth it.

> Github is just greedy.

>> No, Github is a business.

Both comments are a bit silly. Atlassian (BitBucket's creator) is one of the more successful revenue "startups" while GitHub has hardly acted like a business to date.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#106

Post by jstepka »

vineet wrote: post #99
bitcartel wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitbucket's self-hosted enterprise product Stash is priced aggressively. It's free for open source projects, non-profits and classrooms. For small teams (up to 10 users), it costs just $10/year, all in, and you get the source code. http://www.atlassian.com/software/stash/pricing Contrast with Github where the minimum purchase is 1 seat pack (up to 20 users), costing $5000/year, and you don't get any access to the the…

I am really curious: Why does getting access to the source code matter? (I am just asking since it seems to be a selling point, and I have never really modified the code of a tool that I have used. For example, how many people modify Eclipse, or Maven, or BugZilla's source code?)

Stash allows you to customize your deployment... database, server platform and develop plugins.

Having the source is critical to develop tightly integrated plugins for customization.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#107

Post by LordIllidan »

vineet wrote: post #99
bitcartel wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitbucket's self-hosted enterprise product Stash is priced aggressively. It's free for open source projects, non-profits and classrooms. For small teams (up to 10 users), it costs just $10/year, all in, and you get the source code. http://www.atlassian.com/software/stash/pricing Contrast with Github where the minimum purchase is 1 seat pack (up to 20 users), costing $5000/year, and you don't get any access to the the…

I am really curious: Why does getting access to the source code matter? (I am just asking since it seems to be a selling point, and I have never really modified the code of a tool that I have used. For example, how many people modify Eclipse, or Maven, or BugZilla's source code?)

You can fix bugs, customize the interface to your liking, stuff like this? It's basically another selling point, no? (Haven't tried it myself)

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#108

Post by vetler »

pbreit wrote: post #105
lee wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Github is just greedy. No, Github is a business. BitBucket is offering free private accounts as a loss leader, not out of the kindness of their hearts. This is their strategy for competing with GitHub. A $7/month subscription for private github repos is well worth it.

> Github is just greedy. >> No, Github is a business. Both comments are a bit silly. Atlassian (BitBucket's creator) is one of the more successful revenue "startups" while GitHub has hardly acted like a business to date.

Atlassian is not Bitbucket's creator, they bought it a couple of years ago.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#109

Post by pbreit »

vineet wrote: post #99
bitcartel wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitbucket's self-hosted enterprise product Stash is priced aggressively. It's free for open source projects, non-profits and classrooms. For small teams (up to 10 users), it costs just $10/year, all in, and you get the source code. http://www.atlassian.com/software/stash/pricing Contrast with Github where the minimum purchase is 1 seat pack (up to 20 users), costing $5000/year, and you don't get any access to the the…

I am really curious: Why does getting access to the source code matter? (I am just asking since it seems to be a selling point, and I have never really modified the code of a tool that I have used. For example, how many people modify Eclipse, or Maven, or BugZilla's source code?)

Just thinking out loud...maybe the customer would like to make a modification or two? Is it better to _not_ have the source code?

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#110

Post by mitjak »

Osiris wrote: post #80
bitcartel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Bitbucket because they support both Mercurial and Git. They also acquired SourceTree (probably the best version control app on the Mac), employed the main developer and made the app free.

I've tried at least a dozen Git GUIs for both PC and Mac and SourceTree is by far my favorite.

Can you elaborate on why? I've found it to be far from intuitive and basically a direct mapping of CLI commands straight into UI elements. A user unfamiliar with command line git arguments would have a difficult time with SourceTree, I would imagine (most of my coworkers have).
Post reply on HN