Bitbucket Reviews

Our primary use case of this solution is as source repository. We use it to store all the source codes. So we basically use it for easy management of access to the source repository and creating pull requests. It also helps us to manage and get an overview of the different branches we have. It integrates into JIRA seamlessly so you can see the task effects on a JIRA task and Git.

What I liked the most about this program is that it integrates seamlessly with JIRA, which really adds value to our organization. I also like it as a pull request feature, even though that feature can definitely be improved.

I think the developers are constantly working on improving the pull requests support. It already works quite well, but there are still some issues with the support of the workflow and how to actually measure the time you spend on using reviews for pull requests compared to the time you actually use for doing the task. I am not really sure how that should be handled. I don't have a good solution for it yet. 

I don't have any issues with the stability of Bitbucket. It just works as it should.

The only thing I've experienced with the scalability is that you have to buy additional licenses when you exceed 50 users. That's more related to the cost model. I don't think I've experienced any scalability issues with it so far, however. I didn't expect to either because it's primarily hooked up to Git, that's the source repository.

Only when we misuse Git, like when we add large binary files to a source repository, it doesn't go that well. That's because we don't use it like it was intended to be used. It has nothing to do with Bitbucket - it's more about Git.

I haven't used their technical support yet.

I don't know exactly what the program costs, but it depends on how many users you have. We recently upgraded from 50 to 100 users, and I think it's public on the website. I am not sure. 

My advice to others would be that, if they are looking for a stable on-premises solution, Bitbucket is the obvious choice. They can even use it if they are looking for a cloud solution, but we have a restriction that we have to run it on-premises. Therefore I think it's the smallest, best solution for us. 

I think it's worth paying for the extra features because otherwise you end up spending a lot of time configuring open source products. 

On a scale from one to 10, I rate Bitbucket a nine.

Actually, I have an E-commerce product on that solution and store it there. I deploy the product for each customer and they use it. I'm trying to use the cloud system as my center for distribution. I use Bitbucket for hosting the core code.

I'm using the private cloud because I don't want to have my source public on the internet. I'm very happy about that solution because it's precisely enough for me and my needs. Being private was very important for me, and working with the product's GUI user interface is a good experience. 

While it is a good and useful product for my application, there are several disadvantages to the system. One thing I have seen is that you can't add some better features to the wiki system. For example, better attachment and document management could be more useful. We actually use another system for our documents because the document management system was not suited for us. Maybe they can improve the wiki side of that product. The issue tracking also can be better than it is now.

The wiki side of the system can use the most enhancement. When I want to use the wiki, I have many problems writing the source code in different code languages. We are creating a web program. Because it is a web project, we want to use, for example, JavaScript and we use CSS. Then we want to use Java for the back-end. When we use different languages, we have a problem deploying them with that system.

Sorting documents is an issue, and also issue tracking over in the system is not very professional. If you compare this product with JIRA it is not very good in these capacities. There is a lot of room for improvement. Another comparison could be made with teamwork.com which is better at these things. We used teamwork for a situation where we needed both better document handling and better issue tracking. We wanted to have something like GitLab with all the features of a project management tool.

Another problem that I had involved issues with CICD (Continuous Integration Continuous Deployment). I could not configure it easily. I did not try to resolve the issue and left it for the future. Maybe it was because of the user interface or maybe because the documentation was not so good, but the CICD pipeline wasn't very easy for us to use. Maybe just adding more helpful documentation for that feature will solve the issue.

The limit on the number of users became a problem for us because we live in a country in the Middle East. The issue of spending more money and having additional costs is a really big concern for us. For example, for being the Turkish leader in the field, what we were able to charge the customer compared to what we are paying for services is not cheap. That makes it difficult to make a decent profit, re-invest and grow.

Other additional features I would like to see can help expand how we work with customers. One example is adding a notebook. There is no notebook in the product at all to write notes for your users and customers to remember details about them and have them available.

Another example would be to add a feature that allows you to integrate and converse with GitLab. Sometimes we need to write some notes for something inside GitLab, but it would be good to have the availability to add from both products and have them integrated. 

If BitBucket had online chat and online help for premium users, it will be best for users who need to get support. Programmers want to focus on the code. For example, if I want to configure something in my pipeline or in a product I am building, I may need to read 30 articles to understand what is happening on the system in order to program it. If I am in a rush and I am a programmer, I don't have enough time for that. So if BitBucket had an online chat system for support to help the developers, that could speed up development and access to support itself.

I can understand these things may not be the primary purpose of the BitBucket solution, but maybe if these things can be added the solution would be more independent, better integrated and would be nearly perfect.

This solution is perfectly stable. We never had a problem with it, and after five years it is still running as we expect. I love this program for that. 

Many software companies are trying to scale up on the cloud. BitBucket should add some features to make some better use of the cloud and other integrations. For example, if you want to migrate your product to AWS (Amazon Web Services), the AWS will try to send the source code to a codecomp system. Maybe you have something that you do not want to migrate from the source to Amazon. It would be nice to have controls for that. When you commit the code to BitBucket it would be good to be able to also commit from BitBucket to use AWS. 

In our company, we had ten proficient programmers working on the project and we have good clients in Turkey. We could scale the program as well as the number of users and our market or in other ways. I think I am confident in that. So the product is scalable in many ways.

The company can improve access to technical support. Some of the documentation was not so good. We did not use it much.

From my point of view, the setup for the Atlassian product was better than other products but had less to offer as a system. I tried to switch to TFS (Team Foundation Server), a Microsoft product, and I couldn't use that because I loved this user interface system in the BitBucket product more than TFS.

The first upload of our project was in 2015. I uploaded that code. It wasn't very hard to use the solution or do the deployment. Some of the configuration is not as easy or as good as it could be. The system has changed, but since the implementation, I have made no changes in three years.

In a way, I did evaluate other options but it was after I was already working with BitBucket. I tried to use TFS and GitLab, but I couldn't add my existing support to their systems. I loved this support system that I had with BitBucket — the system was very good. But looked at other solutions because I wanted some other features that these other products claimed to have, like issue tracking and a better wiki. These were things which I couldn't get directly in the BitBucket service. But I had gotten used to the excellent GUI in BitBucket and thought it was almost perfect. There were some things missing but the solution was perfectly enough for us. I decided there was no need to change to TFS or the GIT system after the comparison.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as an eight. I love this product, so actually eight may actually not be good enough for the rating. On the other hand, there is a lot that could be incorporated or improved.

• The whitelisting feature - Except for the white listed IPs nobody can access it.
• It is on the cloud which, security-wise, is a plus point. 
• It has several flows that makes it an effective user-review system to help avoid unwanted code. 
• It also has different levels of security, different levels of encryption.

Initially, we were using other SCM tools that do not have stringent rules that your code should be reviewed first and only then can you commit the code. Bitbucket has push and pull features, that process. When someone wants to commit code, they first pull the code and submit a review request. The request goes to the reviewer and he has to review first, then only he can allow it to be merged.

This process has improved the code quality because every time we commit code it is reviewed by peers, and only then can you commit the code.

It has a distinct tree type of structure that any branch that you need to create can only be a replication of, more or less, of the changes. You can not have a branch that is totally different from the root. This is an advantage but also a drawback. Being a developer, I would prefer to have these kinds of rules. But again, that does not allow me to use the same repository for a different kind of structure so I would need to create a new repository if I am changing the whole structure of the application. You can say both, it is a drawback or it is plus of the application.

Another thing, the time it takes for the repository to get downloaded and be available increases if you are using the cloud version. The only thing we can improve is the bandwidth. If you have low bandwidth and you have a relatively large repository, say more than one GB, it will take a lot of time.

Six to eight months now.

Until now, we haven't found any issues with stability. Once only, there was an issue, we were not able to connect to the application server. That was resolved within some 15 minutes, as soon as we filed a ticket and reported it, it was resolved in 15 minutes. I don't think that there is any issue with stability.

Right now, we are at around 200 developers using it and we haven't found any issue with the scalability.

I haven't called them, but we use their technical support system by submitting a ticket. I would rate it as eight out of 10, their support by email, etc.

We were using something else initially. We switched to Bitbucket as it is a cloud version and we need to support multiple locations; people from multiple locations are accessing the code. Until now, it has been quite helpful.

Because it's a cloud version, we did not need to do any kind of setup with it. We initially started using the trial version of it for 30 days. We created some repositories and started accessing it. Later on, we bought the Enterprise version of it. There were no issues, as such, in setting it up.

We had a few options: Installing it on-prem, and we were also using the previous solution. We found that we prefer Bitbucket as we were going to get good support from a known company. The other thing was that it is on the cloud so we wouldn't have to maintain the server and deal with other maintenance issues. That's why we prefer Bitbucket.

If someone is going to migrate their own code from an SCM to Bitbucket, it could take a lot of time if your code is a bit older. That means that you have larger number of divisions, so it could really take much more time for transferring that to Bitbucket. Otherwise, there's no issue migrating. If it's something that will go directly into Bitbucket, it's just a one-step process.

When it comes to the migration process, because most developers are used to working on other tools, migrating them to Bitbucket takes some time. If Bitbucket had its own migration tool or utility that could be used directly to transfer your SCMs from the older system to Bitbucket, it would have been better. We had to figure out some way or other to do that. If they would have provided something like that, that would have been a plus point.

Overall, it's quite good. It gives you lots of flexibility to use it. It follows all of the site framework. The best practice is that you are required to have your code reviewed before it's committed. Also, there are many layers of permissions that you can apply to a repository. 

We use Bitbucket for version controlling our source code, and also CI/CD was utilizing Bitbucket pipelines. We have automated build pipelines, daily master build pipelines, and daily releases.

It nicely integrates with Atlassian Jira, making it easy to find relevant branches and PRs. We also have Teams integration for Atlassian products like Confluence.

It has a nice user experience to review PRs and provides great pipeline features, integrating well with other Atlassian products.

Bitbucket pipelines could be enhanced by adding scalability and caching for images. If we could get the cloud-native benefits to Bitbucket pipeline like in Tekton, it would be great.

I have used the solution for about two years.

The solution is stable.

Our main repository gets around 200 PRs per day, and this load has limited Bitbucket pipelines due to steep limitations.

Customer service is actually done by the R&D and Deployment team. I'm not really aware of those details.

Positive

We moved from Bitbucket to Tekton because our main repository gets two hundred PRs per day, which presented a load on Bitbucket pipelines with step limitations. Moreover, we do not have local image caching, resulting in frequent pulls from Azure Container Registry, leading to Azure's rate limits.

We compared Bitbucket with Tekton, noting the benefits and limitations of each.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.