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

211–220 of 292 posts

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#211

Post by jeremyjh »

dfabulich wrote: post #196
stickfigure wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A user unfamiliar with command line git arguments would have a difficult time with SourceTree Let's be honest about git: A user unfamiliar with the CLI commands will have a difficult time, period. I hesitate to predict that it's impossible to create a good UX, but git is a very complicated system with an abstraction that leaks all the way down to database records. Breathe on it wrong and the repository will wedge int…

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.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#212

Post by jeremyjh »

giulianob wrote: post #104
kkowalczyk wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes exactly. I've noticed a lot of open-source Python projects use Mercurial on BB - there is still some community segmentation. I would think as people get tired of Google Code remaining static and backwards compared to BB that more Mercurial projects will move to BB from Google. The BB UI was pretty weak compared to Github before today. I'm glad to see this.

I use BB for the free private Git repos but had always planned to switch to paid Github once I actually need collaborators. Now I could see staying with BB when I need to go paid.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#213

Post by dfabulich »

stickfigure wrote: post #210
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.)

Oh, how I wish this were so! Even with fairly boring usage, the Github GUI periodically wedges my repository into a state which requires CLI interaction (and a trip to stackoverflow). It's even worse for newbies - I get desperate pleas for help from clients all the time. I have come to the conclusion that there is no way around teaching the command line first, then giving them the Github client after they achieve com…

Can you repro that?

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#214

Post by Ygg2 »

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.

It's not as popular and the site isn't as responsive (UI wise) as Github. But other than that it's pretty awesome. It supports Git for some time too.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#215

Post by LordIllidan »

eloisant wrote: post #202
taligent wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you mad ? $7 a month is nothing for something that you are going to use countless times whilst developing your product. And no offense but Bitbucket is still a clunky mess that lacks the most critical feature: integration with almost every open source project.

That's cool if you have ONE product, and that's it. If you work for customers (say as a freelance developer) and need to create a repo each time you win a new project, the $7 plan is useless.

Exactly, this was the point we were trying to make. In our case, we're a small team (<5), and have a lot of such projects - making our monthly cost closer to 30 to 50 a month. Compared to Bitbucket's cost of $0 for our case, it's definitely a no-brainer.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#216

Post by stickfigure »

dfabulich wrote: post #213
stickfigure wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, how I wish this were so! Even with fairly boring usage, the Github GUI periodically wedges my repository into a state which requires CLI interaction (and a trip to stackoverflow). It's even worse for newbies - I get desperate pleas for help from clients all the time. I have come to the conclusion that there is no way around teaching the command line first, then giving them the Github client after they achieve com…

Can you repro that?

Can I repro giving the Github client to newbies and getting desperate pleas for help soon afterwards? Yes, it's consistent :-)

No, I have not tried to reproduce the incidents which screwed up my repository. After a few harrowing experiences I pretty much gave up using the Github for Mac client for anything except basic commits. And even that screws up - I frequently have to commit files twice; it's like the client only stages some of the files, even though they're all checked. If my commits are large I usually go to the command line to avoid the double commit msgs. I'm about to give up entirely.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#217

Post by lalmalang »

nathan_f77 wrote: post #150
nivloc wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a different way to price products - they charge per user. So, if your little startup starts growing, they bring in a bit of cash and have opportunities to up-sell with the other products in their line.

If my startup grew past 5 team members, I would personally just move my private repos to GitHub and start paying them. Bitbucket provides a great free service, but I'd probably never pay for it.

You just might reconsider (and that is what bb is banking on), at the end of the day having to police the number of repos you can have is a pain(esp in a startup, where people are seemingly forever going off to hack away on random stuff). Sure bb isnt as pretty--current redraw notwithstanding--but unlimited repos is very handy indeed. just saying. Inline commenting was missed (we moved from gh to bb a few months ago), but i see that has been released too.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#218

Post by pbnjay »

meemo wrote: post #205
yosoyzenitram wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better: if you sign up with a .edu email address (hell, even my university email account works and it's a .es), they upgrade your account to unlimited everything , automatically. GitHub also does a Educational plan, but it requires manual requests and IIRC they give you a Micro account. So Bitbucket is the default choice for all my shared class projects.

What if you signed up with your personal account? Is there a way to upgrade by changing your email address to an *.edu email address?

yeah, just add the address and confirm it and it's automatic. I've shown this to a few friends, so I know it works (or at least, it has in the past).

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#219

Post by [deleted] »

stiletto wrote: post #98

A few months ago, I convinced my startup to try bitbucket because of the free private repos. Over the course of a month or two, there were multiple times that I could not collaborate with my teammate because bitbucket was unreachable. We have since switched to github, pay a small fee per month, and have never had this issue. How is everyone else's up-time experiences in the past few months? I'm setting up a few perso…

[deleted]

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#220

Post by recursive »

stickfigure wrote: post #154
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).

A user unfamiliar with command line git arguments would have a difficult time with SourceTree Let's be honest about git: A user unfamiliar with the CLI commands will have a difficult time, period. I hesitate to predict that it's impossible to create a good UX, but git is a very complicated system with an abstraction that leaks all the way down to database records. Breathe on it wrong and the repository will wedge int…

I recently started keeping some source code in a gist, which github was eager to point out is a full repository. The UI is not very usable, but it's not hard to understand for the non git enlightened like myself. If nothing else, this proves that it's possible to create an easy to use git GUI. (with reduced functionality)
Post reply on HN