Atlassian SourceTree Reviews

My main use case for Atlassian SourceTree is managing our Git repositories across multiple projects. We use it as a visual Git client so developers who aren't as comfortable with the command line can still work efficiently with branches, commits, and merges. It sits at the center of our day-to-day development workflow.

In a typical day, Atlassian SourceTree is open in the background most of the time. First thing in the morning, I pull the latest changes from the remote repository to make sure I'm starting the day in sync with whatever the rest of the team pushed overnight. Throughout the day as I'm working on features or fixes, I commit changes in Atlassian SourceTree rather than the terminal. The visual diff view is really useful for that. Before I commit anything, I scan through exactly what changed line by line so I'm not accidentally committing something I didn't intend to.

I use Atlassian SourceTree for branch management probably the most heavily. We follow a GitFlow style workflow, so there are always multiple feature branches, hotfix branches, and release branches going on at the same time. Being able to see all of that laid out visually in the commit graph, rather than trying to picture it in your head from command line output, is much easier. When it comes to merging, especially pulling a feature branch back into main, I use Atlassian SourceTree to review the diff properly before I do anything. It has saved me from a few challenging situations over the years.

The best features Atlassian SourceTree offers is that you can see the entire branch structure laid out clearly, which makes it much easier to understand what's going on across a project.

Atlassian SourceTree has positively impacted my organization because benefits add up over a year when you're bringing in new developers regularly. Avoiding merge disasters has real value. Even one bad merge that takes half a day to untangle costs more than the tool would if it wasn't free. The return on investment is significant.

The main issue for improving Atlassian SourceTree is performance.

I have been working in my current field for six years.

Atlassian SourceTree is stable as it works well for our team size.

Atlassian SourceTree's customer support is satisfactory as we've never needed to raise a formal support ticket because the community resources have always had what we needed. The documentation is decent, and the community is active enough that most questions are already answered somewhere.

Before Atlassian SourceTree, most of the team was using Git from the command line. It worked fine for senior developers, but it was a barrier for junior team members. Atlassian SourceTree gave everyone a common interface regardless of their command-line confidence.

Atlassian SourceTree has positively impacted my organization because benefits add up over a year when you're bringing in new developers regularly. Avoiding merge disasters has real value. Even one bad merge that takes half a day to untangle costs more than the tool would if it wasn't free. The return on investment is significant.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Atlassian SourceTree is that it's completely free, which was a big factor for us. There are no licensing costs, no approvals needed, just download and install.

Before choosing Atlassian SourceTree, I evaluated other options such as GitKraken and GitHub Desktop. GitKraken was really polished and feature-rich, but the pricing model didn't suit us.

My advice to others looking into using Atlassian SourceTree is that it's a great tool, especially for teams with mixed technical backgrounds. Go in knowing it's not a full replacement for understanding Git properly. It helps a lot, but you'll still hit situations where knowing the command line saves you. I would rate this product seven out of ten.

I used Atlassian SourceTree to demo integration with Jira and other tools like GitLab, GitHub, and Bitbucket. It provides visibility on the Jira side by linking issues from Jira.

For me, the branches graph was the most valuable feature of Atlassian SourceTree. I often used the terminal, but during a demo, my boss preferred I not switch to the terminal view. SourceTree's graphical interface for managing branches was handy for that. The demo involved making changes, committing them, pushing to the CI/CD tool, running the pipeline, and seeing the integration, all within about twenty minutes.

I have experience with Atlassian SourceTree, which I used as a demo product. 

I would rate SourceTree's stability as solid.

Last year, I had some positive experiences with their support team. They proactively reach out when you start writing a ticket and open up chats with an engineer, allowing you to describe your problem without formally raising a ticket. It's a lovely feature.

Positive

Setting up Atlassian SourceTree is straightforward; I'd rate it a ten out of ten in terms of ease.

I'm unsure about the specific return on investment for SourceTree, as it depends on its use and the practices in place. Regarding managing multiple repositories for large projects, I believe SourceTree can handle them without issues.

I do not recall the exact pricing details for SourceTree, but generally, Atlassian products are affordable, and SourceTree typically comes as part of a suite.

There are some valuable features in SourceTree for viewing differences between commits and files, but I'm unaware of specific automation features. 

I would recommend SourceTree to other developers as it's a good tool.  

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for pushing the code, pulling the changes, for the commits part, and for creating breaches. In GitHub, we use the command line, but in Atlassian SourceTree, we have the UI or user interface.

If you like writing commands in the command prompt, then you can use the CLI. If you want to have a visualized thing like Windows or something between Windows and Linux, then you can use SourceTree for that. If you want commands to be written and jobs to be executed, then you can go to GitHub's CLI.

There can be improvements in the way the messages are displayed in the tool. The visuals, including the UI and UX, have simple fonts, making it an area where certain enhancements can be done.

I have been using Atlassian SourceTree for eight months. I am a user of the tool.

Around ten to twelve people use the tool in my company.

In the development environment, the product's deployment phase was a simple push-and-pull process.

I would say that others can use the tool, it is a good way when pulling changes in your codes. I definitely recommend the tool.

It is easy for a beginner to start learning to use the product, and you need to have some knowledge about GitHub.

The tool's UI is good.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The solution's interface is complicated to use for a new programmer. It needs to be more accessible.

The solution's scalability could be better compared to GitKraken.

I take help from the solution's documentation in case of technical issues and have never contacted their support team for assistance. While working from multiple locations, we need help lining up old and new features. It is complicated to resolve them sometimes. It could be more informative in terms of errors than GitKraken.

Neutral

The solution's initial setup process is straightforward.

Compared with the solution, GitKraken has a much simpler way of presenting the information.

I advise others to evaluate GitKraken as well. I rate the solution a five out of ten.

We primarily use this for repairing a broken Git repository. I don't usually use it and others on the team, as far as I know, don't necessarily use it in the normal workflow, but it is pretty good when you have really messed up your repository. It lets you dive in visually and see what you've done. It's better than the command line tools.

This product has helped because we have been able to fix problems when our code repository breaks.

The most valuable feature is the ability to fix a broken repository merge. Some of the things that you now see in Bitbucket from Atlassian that are on the cloud-hosted version are now starting to creep into that market over the standalone desk version.

The interface is pretty user-friendly.

For everyday use, I am more comfortable using the command line interface, rather than using SourceTree.

The way our system works for software deployment, having to install this product is inconvenient.

There is a cost for using this product, whereas the command line is at no charge.

I have been using Atlassian SourceTree for approximately five years.

We have experienced no bugs or crashes that I know of.

Given that it is installed on individual machines, it would be easy enough to scale. I would say that about 40% of our development team uses it for fixing issues. Sometimes, even newer developers will use it.

I have not had contact with technical support.

Prior to SourceTree, we would have used TortoiseHg or TortoiseSVN. That would have been when we used Subversion and Mercurial, but since there's no Tortoise version for Git, we used SourceTree.

The initial setup is easy.

There is a fee for using SourceTree.

When people get into a jam, we tell them to use this product and try to see if they can solve it. That is if they weren't able to figure it out using the command-line tool.

I guess that GitHub is trying to push into that too, where now they've now got a GitHub Command Line Interface, that's I think supposedly trying to mirror what the web version does on the command line, but still using Git on the backend. I wonder if that's something that SourceTree or Bitbucket might look at and say, how do they make a tool that works, still Git on the backend, but gives you a visualization in their GUI tool. But then, you use it possibly like GitHub's doing with their GitHub Command-Line, where you get some convenience operators. I guess the trick there is just going to be maintaining Git compatibility and not having to learn a totally different workflow.

In summary, this is a product that works for the case where I need it, but it's not something that I use all of the time. I'm not sure what it would take for me to use it regularly, or how I might better integrate it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Atlassian SourceTree to manage source code from different environments. It helps us merge all the codes by developers.

The software is very reliable because it is easy to use with Bitbucket tool.

The product's UI needs improvement.

The initial setup is straightforward. It takes an hour to complete and requires three to four technicians to execute the process.

I rate Atlassian SourceTree a nine out of ten. It has good data manipulation tools and is easy to use.

I installed Atlassian SourceTree on my Windows or Linux computer and I use it for check-in and check-out code, instead of going directly to the server and doing it that way. Atlassian SourceTree is a client-side application that interfaces with the Bitbucket server.

The interface is very good and is easy to use. It tells you when you've committed, when you've uploaded, and gives you the differences.

You can download Atlassian SourceTree and use it as your client.

I have had a food experience with Atlassian SourceTree but it might not be for everyone.

I have been using Atlassian SourceTree for approximately one year.

The solution is stable. While I have been using it I have not had any issues.

Atlassian SourceTree is scalable.

The initial installation is very easy.

Everyone who installs Atlassian SourceTree on their computer can manage it themself.

Atlassian SourceTree is a free solution.

There are other applications for the client-side that you can use to interface with Bitbucket.

I rate Atlassian SourceTree a nine out of ten.

Importing existing XML files or full test suites to the projects is a valuable feature. The test summary is very useful and intuitive. The responses have very short latency.

I like the view of the changes made in the Working Copy. It is very clear and supports undoing specific changes before committing. I like the automatic merge of conflicting files and the general behavior with conflicts. The 'Tag' option is very simple and intuitive. You can easily configure an additional merging tool to help you with your complicated conflicts, I use KDiff3. I think the options of creating new branches and switching between existing branches are very fast and easy. In my previous job we used Perforce and I thought it wasn't as good in these areas. I like the way that the number of changes waiting for a 'pull' or a 'push' appear next to the icons.

I was doing a very complex file change merge using SourceTree and it took me less than half of the time I estimated. All of the automatic conflicts resolved were very good and the serious conflict were very easy to find and fix.

I think the console can be improved, to allow more shortcuts (for example- supporting dragging a file from the Working Copy to the console ).
Another small improvement I can thick about: allow creating folders to divide the branches and stashes, this is a very simple change that will make things clear.

The UI can be improved because it is not always so easy to find the functionality you are looking for.

There were no issues deploying it for us.

We've experienced no issues with performance.

It can be difficult to gather data on large Geneos estates.

We tested a big portion of our online API product using SoapUI and it was very fast and efficient.

Try to make the product as intuitive as possible, with graphs and nice GUI design, sometimes the history of the working flow can be very complex, a clear graph that describes the merges between the branches makes thing a lot easier to understand. Try to implement good merge process, as automated as possible.

Make sure the SOAP requests are as efficient as possible, this is the most important for the users.