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

231–240 of 292 posts

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#231

Post by josegonzalez »

ckeck wrote: post #162
mitjak wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I haven't seen it mentioned here but Tower for Mac OS has been a great tool for those who are not too familiar with git or it's associated commands. I've recommended it to at least a few hundred clients many of which use it religiously today.

Tower is slow. While a slightly nicer UI, and it running like shit on large repos - at least for work - makes it a non-starter

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#232

Post by mkchandler »

csomar wrote: post #133
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 think it's targeted to startups who want to do costs savings. As they'll probably retain them when they grow, the pricing goes 180 times more expensive for the next plan. It's still a lot cheaper than Github, though.

We recently moved to GitHub Enterprise and it really is not as expensive as it looks. It is $250/year per developer... not really that much considering what you get. Plus it is a virtual server provided for us, so we just have to upload software upgrade packages to get the latest updates. We didn't have to spend the money on someone to set up all of the MySql, Redis, Solr, etc. services to get it running. So honestly I consider GitHub Enterprise to be quite a cost savings. Just a counterpoint...

EDIT: We are not a startup, but still something to consider.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#233

Post by josegonzalez »

tzs wrote: post #118
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…

They've got a good shot, because a lot of people need private repositories and do NOT need the social features of Github. They just need a basic git server to hold the master repository. For doing their work, the built-in tools of git are sufficient. For such people, Github is ridiculously expensive, since their price is based on the number of repositories you have. For instance, at work we've got enough repositories…

Thats maybe a day of single developer's work - less if you actually pay your startup dev's market value.

Paying for a service that can double or triple a developer's productivity - people say the UI on BB is still not as great, so that counts for something - must at some point justify that developer's time.

If you have enough repos that you'd need to spend $200 a month on a platform that offers:

  - Wikis
  - Basic Issue Tracking
  - Source Control (and damn good source control at that)
  - Integration with many popular startup tools
Then maybe your startup should be out of business. I could shit $200 dollars and pay for my companies hosting.

Trying to skimp on this is like telling your 10+ dev team to use google talk for offline coordination. Yes, you save money on chat, but you lose all that time I waste copy-pasting and coordinating chats between multiple devs.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#234

Post by pjscott »

parfe wrote: post #26
bvdbijl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

Yep. That's pretty much the focus of google code.

Not yet it isn't. In the current UI, to get to the source code, you have to

1. Find the little "Source" link and click it.

2. Find the "Browse" link, which is in a little toolbar right under the other little toolbar, next to the (less relevant) "Changes" and "Clones" links, which look visually near-identical.

3. In most (but not all) projects, hunt down the word "trunk" in tiny 13px text, and click it to see the main development branch.

Compare to GitHub or BitBucket, which just show you the damn code.

(Yes, I know you were joking, but I've been wanting to rant about this UI failure for a while now. And don't even get me started on Launchpad.)

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#235

Post by grandalf »

timr wrote: post #227
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.

Yes. Especially when you factor in that github does a startlingly bad job of many basic things. Their ticketing system blows, for example -- you can't prioritize anything. Yet they have time to implement a CLI in the search bar... I moved my personal private repos to BitBucket a long time ago, and haven't looked back.

the cli stuff is very simply implemented, but cool nonetheless.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#236

Post by gcr »

timr wrote: post #227
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.

Yes. Especially when you factor in that github does a startlingly bad job of many basic things. Their ticketing system blows, for example -- you can't prioritize anything. Yet they have time to implement a CLI in the search bar... I moved my personal private repos to BitBucket a long time ago, and haven't looked back.

You can reorder tasks by clicking and dragging, and you can assign discrete priorities with labels. What more do you need?

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#237

Post by zalew »

timr wrote: post #227
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.

Yes. Especially when you factor in that github does a startlingly bad job of many basic things. Their ticketing system blows, for example -- you can't prioritize anything. Yet they have time to implement a CLI in the search bar... I moved my personal private repos to BitBucket a long time ago, and haven't looked back.

that's an example of why I stick with Bitbucket and don't bother to switch to Github with my projects although it's so hyped. Bitbucket works great, gets the job done, their commit log beats up the gihub one, and they don't focus on implementing useless bells and whistles.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#238

Post by zalew »

Ryan_Shmotkin wrote: post #209
notatoad wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitbucket had a pretty easy time of winning my business: free private repositories for small teams is a great way to draw people in.

Can someone explain whats the catch ? Looks like I can host my $22 github account for free on bitbucket.

there is no catch. their business model is not on repo count, but collaborators count. in other words, solo devs and very small teams can freeride, if you grow bigger you start paying.

also, it's backed up by Atlassian.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#239

Post by recursive »

jeremyjh wrote: post #211
dfabulich wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The github GUI for Mac/Windows solves this problem completely, by hiding the vast majority of git's power-user features. (No stage, no no tracking branches, no manual rebasing.)

I don't think this is really for programmers though is it? I thought this was more about content/documentation developers.

It looks like it's for programmers to me.
Post reply on HN