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

171–180 of 292 posts

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#171

Post by whichdan »

sillysaurus wrote: post #152
grandalf wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the $100M investment I now think it's probably a bad business decision for github not to get a bit more aggressive on pricing for those edge cases where bitbucket clearly wins.

it's probably a bad business decision for github not to get a bit more aggressive on pricing for [free private repositories]... Yes. If Github offered just one free private repo, then I would move to them in a heartbeat. Github is still Github, after all. ("Second resume" etc.) Unfortunately current circumstances prevent me from open-sourcing a certain small segment of my codebase, and... well... Bitbucket is free, a…

Personally I'm more bummed about a 1 collaborator limit on the $7/mo plan.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#172

Post by vijayr »

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I wrote a blog post on BitBucket workflow (obviously now it's outdated) and the BitBucket team sent me a free tshirt!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 is not a problem, just 5 private repos is. One can quickly run out of those

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#173

Post by pbz »

sillysaurus wrote: post #152
grandalf wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the $100M investment I now think it's probably a bad business decision for github not to get a bit more aggressive on pricing for those edge cases where bitbucket clearly wins.

it's probably a bad business decision for github not to get a bit more aggressive on pricing for [free private repositories]... Yes. If Github offered just one free private repo, then I would move to them in a heartbeat. Github is still Github, after all. ("Second resume" etc.) Unfortunately current circumstances prevent me from open-sourcing a certain small segment of my codebase, and... well... Bitbucket is free, a…

I would prefer if they would tie their pricing to the size of a repository or the number of collaborators, but not the number of repos. I have a paid account that I would like to dump a lot of old projects that I hardly ever change. I would have to upgrade to "large" and even that one wouldn't fit all the projects. Right now the solution is to either not host it with them or use something like Bitbucket.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#174

Post by shepbook »

whichdan wrote: post #171
sillysaurus wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's probably a bad business decision for github not to get a bit more aggressive on pricing for [free private repositories]... Yes. If Github offered just one free private repo, then I would move to them in a heartbeat. Github is still Github, after all. ("Second resume" etc.) Unfortunately current circumstances prevent me from open-sourcing a certain small segment of my codebase, and... well... Bitbucket is free, a…

Personally I'm more bummed about a 1 collaborator limit on the $7/mo plan.

Where is this "1 collaborator limit"? GitHub has unlimited collaborators on all repositories, private or public.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#176

Post by ward »

niels wrote: post #167
eblume wrote: post #5

I'm having trouble thinking of reasons why bitbucket is used so much less than github - or at least why it seems that way. It's looking pretty damn good to me right now!

Well, the fact that Bitbucket didn't support Git until half a year ago, probably explains it.

It's been a year actually, but ye I imagine that had something to do with it as well.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#177

Post by rmanalan »

charlieok wrote: post #163
bryanh wrote: post #8

For a while I was a bit worried that GitHub had just ran away with the prize and no one else was bothering. It is pretty obvious that Google isn't interested in improving Google Code and that Sourceforge hasn't aged a day (that's not really fair, but it feels like it). I think there is still a chance for BitBucket to make a splash, but I think its going to be hard to win anymore. That's fine, 2nd place makes a lot of…

Since BitBucket is run by Atlassian, whose primary business (as far as I know) is enterprise software, I would guess (again without knowing) that they're in a pretty good position. They're well known for their wiki, Confluence, and their ticket/issue/task tracker, JIRA. Source control is a natural extension of those tools, which I'd guess have had some effort put into making sure they work well together. Looks like S…

> Looks like Stash is what they sell to enterprises, versus BitBucket which is hosted. Anyone know if these are completely separate products, or if they share a common codebase?

Two separate codebases. Bitbucket is running on a Python stack (Django) and Stash is built on a Java stack (traditional Atlassian stack). Stash can be extended through plugins (https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/app/stash/popular?...)

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#178

Post by zem »

pbz wrote: post #173
sillysaurus wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's probably a bad business decision for github not to get a bit more aggressive on pricing for [free private repositories]... Yes. If Github offered just one free private repo, then I would move to them in a heartbeat. Github is still Github, after all. ("Second resume" etc.) Unfortunately current circumstances prevent me from open-sourcing a certain small segment of my codebase, and... well... Bitbucket is free, a…

I would prefer if they would tie their pricing to the size of a repository or the number of collaborators, but not the number of repos. I have a paid account that I would like to dump a lot of old projects that I hardly ever change. I would have to upgrade to "large" and even that one wouldn't fit all the projects. Right now the solution is to either not host it with them or use something like Bitbucket.

definitely. hobbyists tend to run to "lots of small repos with low activity on any given one", but the net resource usage is the same as or lower than "a few big repos". per-repo pricing is more a "pay not to be inconvenienced" than "pay for your use of our resources" thing.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#179

Post by DomBlack »

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.

I personally prefer the simplicity that GitBox gives. (OSX only though)
Post reply on HN