JIRA is one of those things that I've always seen mentioned as amazing if set up properly... but I've never seen it set up "properly". It seems to always get harnessed to the needs of management and/or multipurposed for a hundred different uses, leading to a horrifyingly overcomplicated ticketing process.
The search feature sucks. It can't find anything even when search terms directly matches words in the content it sometimes still show completly irrelevant pages first.
And the editor. Ohh, don't get me started on the editor. It gets confused about formatting so you can't change it. Sometimes random keystrokes jump to the end of the page. The in-page search and replace sometimes ignores the first character. Sometimes when pasting content it preserves formatting and sometimes it just completly garbles the result (especially if tables are involved). When undoing it's quite random whether it will undo your last change, do nothing or undo a random number of changes (and redo is rarely the inverse of the undo you just did). And much much more crap. I hate it with a passion.
This is a short personal opinion. It is debatable how front page worthy it is, but calling it a paid shill is silly. After all, this isn't Russia Today's comment section.
This. While I don't know if they would do it if they were as popular as they want to be (maybe bitbucket desperately wants to charge but don't feel like they could compete if they did), I personally use bitbucket for this very reason.
Sometimes I also use bitbucket just to get away from hosting every single thing in Github. Nothing against Github (I use it quite a bit, and from what I've read their culture and ethics are good if not great), but regardless of their intentions, I'd rather not have one company monopolize mindshare
Agreed. This immediately shot up to the top too, suggests to me their team might have heightened it. Either way, if you want to go for cheap, use Gitlab.com which is also free to use, but can host it yourself so can be far more secure and private, and has great integration with Jira as well. Along with a ton of other issue trackers, since I personally don't like Jira.
+1 for GitLab - a platform that actually feels like a hacker's tool. Not to mention they have an open source edition (CE), unlike GitHub -or- BitBucket.
Gitlab EE (Enterprise Edition) is also open source, you can grab it and use it without an enterprise license if you really want, it's more of a trust-based system. Which I support 100%. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee
Original author here. I wasn't paid for the article. I wrote it primarily because many people know Github and I've been quite happy with Bitbucket as a replacement. I had a good experience for our use case and felt like sharing that.
You raise an interesting point about justifying my choice of Jira. Since the topic was comparing SCMs justifying Jira seemed tangential. Perhaps I will explain in another post what our justifications are for using Jira.
"Github _can_ integrate with Jira, but it has multi-minute delays before Jira gets all of the information. We got tired of it. Seriously. It only takes 30 seconds to break flow. Github's delay broke flow."
That seems like an issue for Jira, not Github IMO. Atlasssian owning both Jira and Bitbucket though, seems like they'd prefer to keep it the way it is for this very reason.
Key features:
- jump to definition right in browser
- find usage examples
- full text AND symbol search
- source code publicly available
- self-hosted, installable in 5 minutes
One of my clients moved their repos from Bitbucket to Github because Bitbucket's uptime had become a reliability issue. The team really dislikes the Pull Request interface of GitHub compared to Bitbucket (as do I).
The biggest difference I see is that Bitbucket's diff view is a tree of changed files, rather than a unified diff. There are things I like about both -- I like that I can get an overview of what changed in Bitbucket, and have a better high-level view of changes.
I still miss the unified diff view from Github, though -- it seemed to work well for small changes, and kept me in the flow for reading, and worked better on a narrower screen (since it didn't need a left-side navigation section). That was the main thing I missed when I first moved to Bitbucket.
The problem with Bitbucket is that it does not integrate with many dev tools and services. Even the most popular CI tools such as CircleCI and Travis do not support Bitbucket and work with only GitHub.
I don't mind paying a small price for these conveniences.
Unless you are using Mercurial why use BitBucket or Stash? If cost is the main concern then it seems like GitLab would be a better option and it has great integrations available and is open source.
And if you don't mind hosting yourself then there are other options too like Gogs. My personal experience with BitBucket is that the feature set is poor compared to alternatives.
This is good to read. The marketplace needs healthy alternatives and it would be a shame if Github turned into the kind of natural monopoly that Ebay or Facebook are. I say this as a happy Github user who doesn't want Github to get complacent.
Bitbucket puts heavy effort into their integration with JIRA. Their pricing model is totally different. Yeay for choice!
My take is that there is real value by integrating your issue tracker with your source repo. If you start with Jira, it's not surprising you would end up with Bitbucket. If you start with Github, it is very easy to use the Github issues tracker.
And, if you want extra Github issues functionality (like a Kanban view), I recommend https://waffle.io.
38 comments
[ 560 ms ] story [ 2062 ms ] threadSo this rings really true to me.
The search feature sucks. It can't find anything even when search terms directly matches words in the content it sometimes still show completly irrelevant pages first.
And the editor. Ohh, don't get me started on the editor. It gets confused about formatting so you can't change it. Sometimes random keystrokes jump to the end of the page. The in-page search and replace sometimes ignores the first character. Sometimes when pasting content it preserves formatting and sometimes it just completly garbles the result (especially if tables are involved). When undoing it's quite random whether it will undo your last change, do nothing or undo a random number of changes (and redo is rarely the inverse of the undo you just did). And much much more crap. I hate it with a passion.
I'd like to +1 for slack. Simple to use and manageable without much knowledge.
* We think GitHub is expensive
* We use JIRA (no real justification given)
* Bitbucket has a better price for our use case and integrates better with JIRA
Sometimes I also use bitbucket just to get away from hosting every single thing in Github. Nothing against Github (I use it quite a bit, and from what I've read their culture and ethics are good if not great), but regardless of their intentions, I'd rather not have one company monopolize mindshare
You raise an interesting point about justifying my choice of Jira. Since the topic was comparing SCMs justifying Jira seemed tangential. Perhaps I will explain in another post what our justifications are for using Jira.
[1] http://blogs.atlassian.com/2014/04/connecting-jira-6-2-githu...
"Github _can_ integrate with Jira, but it has multi-minute delays before Jira gets all of the information. We got tired of it. Seriously. It only takes 30 seconds to break flow. Github's delay broke flow."
Key features: - jump to definition right in browser - find usage examples - full text AND symbol search - source code publicly available - self-hosted, installable in 5 minutes
Full disclosure: I'm co-founder of Sourcegraph.
I still miss the unified diff view from Github, though -- it seemed to work well for small changes, and kept me in the flow for reading, and worked better on a narrower screen (since it didn't need a left-side navigation section). That was the main thing I missed when I first moved to Bitbucket.
I don't mind paying a small price for these conveniences.
TL;DR: they use Github for auth, user management, ... and don't want to rebuild that stuff outside of Github.
all for the cost of abou5 $5 a month.
And if you don't mind hosting yourself then there are other options too like Gogs. My personal experience with BitBucket is that the feature set is poor compared to alternatives.
Might be worth noticing that this is for the SaaS. The enterprise install is charged per user.
Makes sense too I guess since then you pay for your own storage anyway, where for the SaaS most of the costs is, hence charged per repo.
Bitbucket puts heavy effort into their integration with JIRA. Their pricing model is totally different. Yeay for choice!
Has the limit on private repositories ever driven publishing of open source libraries for some of your repos?
And, if you want extra Github issues functionality (like a Kanban view), I recommend https://waffle.io.