PM for Bitbucket pipelines here, my team of ~20 owns that feature E2W, would genuinely love to chat, share some stuff we're working on, and get feedback/thoughts.
Ping me if you're open to chatting emunday@atlassian.com
Bitbucket used to fall over for monorepos. Sometimes it would fall into a death spiral, sometimes it would attribute PRs and commits to the wrong engineers (!!!) Not sure if that's still the case, but it was awful working with it.
Don't even get me started on the dumpster fire that is Jira.
Just an FYI - we (Bitbucket cloud) recently shipped changes to the PR experience (rebuilt the PR diffing algorithm) which has increased the speed by ~95%.
100% aware we still have a way to go on performance, but we're literally orders of magnitude faster than even 12 months ago, with another order of magnitude on the cards this year, especially for larger customers (250+ users).
GitLab has probably 5x as many features as Bitbucket. For example you still need a ticketing system with Bitbucket (Jira), but not with Gitlab since its issues system is self contained.
I use Bitbucket at $job. They do have CI/CD now, it's called Bitbucket Pipelines. It's not bad, not great. For better or worse, I always measure version control hosting against GitHub which is still the king in my opinion. There are so many little things that GH has which BB doesn't. When you add them all together, it's easy to see why you'd want to switch to GH or something similar.
Examples:
GH lets you write comments/feedback on a PR and then submit it (sort of like staging the comments) in one fell swoop. With BB, each comment triggers a notification to the PR author.
GH has draft PRs. Debatable how useful these are, but people definitely like them on GH and that's not an option on BB.
GH has built-in support for Mermaid in markdown, BB doesn't and won't ever.
GH Actions generally seem more flexible. BB, for example, doesn't let you call a custom "Pipe" when using your own Mac OS runner in BB Pipelines — something you need to do if you want to build Apple projects — which is just a strange and frustrating limitation.
There are so many other things. In general, BB is just slow and janky as almost all Atlassian products are. Every time you click to complete or submit something, you just experience slowness.
I'd switch to GH in a minute if we could, but our team already uses so much other Atlassian crap that we're kind of stuck with it at the moment.
I use it (old self hosted and cloud. Also GitLab and GitHub on a regular basis.)
BitBucket is ok.
It doesn’t have nearly the same feature set as the others. You have to bring on more of the Atlassian ecosystem to get those. The integrations with stuff like Jira and Confluence are solid of course.
The features is does have are well implemented I feel. For example, the PR review UI is great. It is almost as good as GitHub’s and worlds better than GitLab’s. It has great access control that is probably a better fit for enterprise environments than the competition (another area where GitLab is lacking IME).
BitBucket added CI/CD. I’ve used it only for one project. It got the job done, but was worse than the others.
We use Bitbucket Cloud. About 250 repositories, 50-ish with CI/CD functionality. It is sloooow. In 2022 there were more than a few outages. Very annoying. And this year so far I had issues onboarding a new colleague due to invitation emails not being sent out.
Other than that it's cheap by itself, but count in developer hours spent just waiting, and it's suddenly not so cheap after all.
ok_dad|3 years ago
llamaLord|3 years ago
Ping me if you're open to chatting emunday@atlassian.com
echelon|3 years ago
Don't even get me started on the dumpster fire that is Jira.
xwowsersx|3 years ago
the_duke|3 years ago
I've seen lots of companies move away from their stack over the last few years.
The UI is a dog slow , bloated mess of Javascript and is unusable on big PRs, and that's just the most obvious flaw.
I personally would not recommend it.
llamaLord|3 years ago
100% aware we still have a way to go on performance, but we're literally orders of magnitude faster than even 12 months ago, with another order of magnitude on the cards this year, especially for larger customers (250+ users).
bearjaws|3 years ago
anonymoustrolol|3 years ago
xwowsersx|3 years ago
Examples:
GH lets you write comments/feedback on a PR and then submit it (sort of like staging the comments) in one fell swoop. With BB, each comment triggers a notification to the PR author.
GH has draft PRs. Debatable how useful these are, but people definitely like them on GH and that's not an option on BB.
GH has built-in support for Mermaid in markdown, BB doesn't and won't ever.
GH Actions generally seem more flexible. BB, for example, doesn't let you call a custom "Pipe" when using your own Mac OS runner in BB Pipelines — something you need to do if you want to build Apple projects — which is just a strange and frustrating limitation.
There are so many other things. In general, BB is just slow and janky as almost all Atlassian products are. Every time you click to complete or submit something, you just experience slowness.
I'd switch to GH in a minute if we could, but our team already uses so much other Atlassian crap that we're kind of stuck with it at the moment.
belak|3 years ago
- https://bitbucket.org/product/features/pipelines
- https://bitbucket.org/blog/introducing-bitbucket-pipelines-b...
time0ut|3 years ago
BitBucket is ok.
It doesn’t have nearly the same feature set as the others. You have to bring on more of the Atlassian ecosystem to get those. The integrations with stuff like Jira and Confluence are solid of course.
The features is does have are well implemented I feel. For example, the PR review UI is great. It is almost as good as GitHub’s and worlds better than GitLab’s. It has great access control that is probably a better fit for enterprise environments than the competition (another area where GitLab is lacking IME).
BitBucket added CI/CD. I’ve used it only for one project. It got the job done, but was worse than the others.
whirlwin|3 years ago
Other than that it's cheap by itself, but count in developer hours spent just waiting, and it's suddenly not so cheap after all.
PaywallBuster|3 years ago
Some companies look like they never moved away from Bitbucket
And now that they have some half-assed CI/CD offering, _some_ companies are moving into it as the first CI/CD tool they've ever used
seanconaty|3 years ago
bsagdiyev|3 years ago