111–120 of 188 posts
Mercurial is a better tool than Git in almost every aspect. It's easy to learn and gets out of your way. I chose it over git a few years ago and sticked with it ever since and used Bitbucket to host most of my stuff. You don't get the community that Github has, but the hosting is great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "social aspects" mean? Number of users and/or something else?
GitHub definitely has more users (4.4m claimed https://github.com/features/community ), but I meant the social interaction capabilities and features that GitHub offers. GitHub is much more organized around community and public feedback (search, stars, comments, etc.), than BitBucket. IMO, neither is claiming to be something they aren't. It just happens that for private repos and hosting where the focus isn't discover…
- bitbucket wants enterprise developers to use it. (so it must be free for the private repos the enterprise needs). It's a gateway drug.
- github wants its offering to be directly valuable to its users (which might be open-source, startup, small, medium or enterprise team).
This predicts that github will be a better as a whole package (including issue tracking etc); and bitbucket will be great for git itself. But there's also much commonality: they both want to attract new users; "viral marketing" (in the sense of social projects pulling more people into the ecosystem) is helpful to both. But I think bitbucket sells itself as "free private repos* so there isn't really an overlap.
I predict that bitbucket must not become a viable alternative to atlassian's paid offerings; but github isn't restricted in that way (of course, they might well add paid offerings).
It seems there's also a danger for bitbucket: if users adopt their issue-tracking etc, it might be painful to upgrade; and so users might as well switch to github or other. Bitbucket should have an auto-upgrade (or, I guess their present issue tracking could evolve into a freemium model... that probably makes the most sense).
Github has the social aspects nailed down, but for small teams or personal projects, I don't hesitate to use bitbucket. Particularly now that you can use HipChat for free on small teams, hosting with bitbucket and managing your project exclusively through Atlassian is fantastic. I like issue management in bitbucket much more than github, as well (personal opinion, no great foundation here).
For personal projects or two person projects, Kiln is available for free. For larger teams, one of the advantages is that you can use Mercurial and Git interchangeably in the same project. Also, with the startup edition you get Fogbugz, which is pretty decent - and certainly lightyears ahead of github issues. Note: I have no relationship with FogCreek, but I've added a few personal projects there and so far I have no…
I used FogBugz for about 6 years in a major client project (a successful SaaS product). We used FogCreek's hosted solution and were pretty heavy users: different projects, milestones, feature requests, user communication, etc. However, we were unhappy with FogBugz. The UI always felt clunky and slow to navigate, it felt like we were battling FB rather than getting help from it. In particular, milestone / release management and issue grouping were painful.
Then late last year we moved our repos to GH, and decided to look for another issue management system. We evaluated several: JIRA sucked hard imho, JetBrains YouTrack was my favorite full-featured product.
But then we decided to give GH issue management a try. It is minimalist and surely lacked some features, but hey, if it could handle our needs, the simplicity would be a huge plus.
A few months later, _everyone_ in the team is thrilled: devs, testers, support personnel. Using milestones and labels we have been able to manage more people and more work on GH (we're growing) with less hassle. It feels much friendlier than FogBugz. Now whenever I create / solve / assign / organize issues, I feel happy, whereas before it was a dreaded chore.
YMMV of course, but I wanted to give my 2c since I do have a lot of experience with both issue managers.
Bitbucket is nice as a Mercurial or Git repo service but Gihub is a phenomenon.
Has bitbucket had any security issues like github has had in the past?
They had one I reported Oct 2010, took a while to convince was an issue and they finally fixed a few months after saying they would. The URLS for attachments to private issues in private repos were guessable and publicly accessible if you guessed right (ie no authentication for them). The URLs were like this / / / /attachmentname" rel="nofollow">https://bitbucket-assetroot.s3.amazonaws.com/ Obviously a bit tedious to…
If you're wondering how they can offer free private repositories (awesome!), it's probably because they also offer a ton of other tightly integrated services such as Crucible, JIRA, etc. JIRA is pretty sweet to keep things in order.
JIRA seemed to complicated to me. Sure, I could figure it out, but getting my stakeholders to update issues and keep track of things in there did not seem nearly as feasible as it has been in a simpler tool like redmine. Redmine is far from perfect, but a monkey could figure out how to use it, which is important if you have your clients engaged in the project management process (granted, I know not everyone has this…
I love bitbucket and even paid $10 before I had users for personal projects, now I pay since I have so many biz and client repos up there and growing teams. I have been recommending it for private repos/companies ever since and have gladly paid for it. You can store so much up there and unlimited repos in either Mercurial or Git which is awesome. For company/private repos I always use bitbucket, for OSS I use github.…
I was even happier when they ported SourceTree to Windows. All I need now is the Mercurial support for it, so I can finally use a single client for both Git + Hg in Windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For personal projects or two person projects, Kiln is available for free. For larger teams, one of the advantages is that you can use Mercurial and Git interchangeably in the same project. Also, with the startup edition you get Fogbugz, which is pretty decent - and certainly lightyears ahead of github issues. Note: I have no relationship with FogCreek, but I've added a few personal projects there and so far I have no…
I respectfully disagree regarding Fogbugz vs. GitHub issues. I used FogBugz for about 6 years in a major client project (a successful SaaS product). We used FogCreek's hosted solution and were pretty heavy users: different projects, milestones, feature requests, user communication, etc. However, we were unhappy with FogBugz. The UI always felt clunky and slow to navigate, it felt like we were battling FB rather than…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Offsite data backup of the entire repository for free.
I see. I suppose that makes sense if you mostly work on a single machine. (Since I usually oscillate between two machines I never think about backing up in addition to the normal work-flow.)