Github has the social aspects nailed down, but for small teams or personal projects, I don't hesitate to use bitbucket. Particularly now that you can use HipChat for free on small teams, hosting with bitbucket and managing your project exclusively through Atlassian is fantastic. I like issue management in bitbucket much more than github, as well (personal opinion, no great foundation here).
For personal projects or two person projects, Kiln is available for free. For larger teams, one of the advantages is that you can use Mercurial and Git interchangeably in the same project.
Also, with the startup edition you get Fogbugz, which is pretty decent - and certainly lightyears ahead of github issues.
Note: I have no relationship with FogCreek, but I've added a few personal projects there and so far I have no complaints.
I don't understand why they offer an Enterprise version of Stash, but not Bitbucket! I do SCM migrations for companies, and I find people pick up Hg a lot faster than Git. But no enterprise customer is going to use an externally hosted solution.
I recently stopped paying $12/month for github and moved all my private repositories to bitbucket. Since it's just me working on the repositories, it's totally free.
I really like bitbucket. The other day I actually looked at their pricing plans to see if their was a small plan I could upgrade to for additional features. I cant really even think of new features I need; And, the size of the free plan is good enough for me. I just really like the service. Weird.
I think Github unnecessarily is having a LOT of its lunch eaten by Bitbucket b/c of its unwillingness to let people just have a bunch of small private repos for low activity work.
It's worth noting that GitHub charges per repo whereas Bitbucket charges per user. So GitHub might make sense for product businesses where there are only a handful of repos, but Bitbucket is much more cost effective in an agency environment where you might have a repo per client or even per project.
If you're wondering how they can offer free private repositories (awesome!), it's probably because they also offer a ton of other tightly integrated services such as Crucible, JIRA, etc.
Really? I use and love BitBucket, but the last 2 places I worked at used JIRA and it was the worst project management tool I've ever used. I'm sure someone will say they didn't configure it right or educate the devs or something. Seriously though, it was pushed down from upper management in both cases and it was a terrible experience. Then they thought Greenhopper would fix it, ha. (This was about 4+ years ago)
Edit - According to the comments below it sounds like my experience was a result of trying to do too much with it. I just might play around with a bit just for some bug tracking with some of my BitBucket projects.
JIRA is sweet if you have a JIRA engineer to set the system up. The last implementation of JIRA I used was broken beyond belief. As a developer, id rather user something simple like Asana or Do.
JIRA seemed to complicated to me. Sure, I could figure it out, but getting my stakeholders to update issues and keep track of things in there did not seem nearly as feasible as it has been in a simpler tool like redmine. Redmine is far from perfect, but a monkey could figure out how to use it, which is important if you have your clients engaged in the project management process (granted, I know not everyone has this requirement).
Bitbucket is an especially awesome resource for students. (Yes, I know GitHub offers free student accounts.) But the unlimited free private repositories makes it easy to back up tons of homework projects (as opposed to the small GitHub offering), without worrying about clogging your quota, or having your work available to the public.
I wouldn't be surprised if this has a lot to do with the latest growth. I've taken one or two Coursera courses (eg. [1]) where Bitbucket was specifically recommended for the private repositories.
It would be a hassle to get counted as a student by Github without an edu email, and it would be too much for them to individually approve tens of thousands of people.
Exactly! Just backing up my .bash_rc files and other configuration files in a git repo, push on BitBucket and it makes it so easy to setup a new dev env on every new machine with all your custom aliases.
I love bitbucket and even paid $10 before I had users for personal projects, now I pay since I have so many biz and client repos up there and growing teams. I have been recommending it for private repos/companies ever since and have gladly paid for it. You can store so much up there and unlimited repos in either Mercurial or Git which is awesome.
For company/private repos I always use bitbucket, for OSS I use github. The prices are right, it's flexible and you can have the comfort of serviced repos off your local. It is great for remote teams or getting companies to open up to remote access to repos.
I started using bitbucket when it was primarily python focused (github started ruby focused) and liked Mercurial since it was Python based and better supported on Windows back in the day for many windows clients. But they have definitely kept up and after Atlassian bought it they haven't dropped the ball. I also use SourceTree before they bought it and Atlassian knows good tools when they see them, bought that and opened it up (with a windows client in beta).
Congrats to bitbucket from a happy customer for a long time.
I completely agree. I picked BitBucket initially because Mercurial was better supported in Windows.
I was even happier when they ported SourceTree to Windows. All I need now is the Mercurial support for it, so I can finally use a single client for both Git + Hg in Windows.
One thing I miss in Bitbucket is repo discovery. There's no way, or at least I can't find it, to browse the repositories filtering by language, popularity, etc.
1 million users, I don't know how many repos, but I can tell you I've found lots of cool projects in GitHub thanks to to their search/browsing features. I may be wrong but I think Bitbucket needs that.
There are a number of issues that I'd like to see bitbucket push on. [1], [2], [3], [4] to name a few. If they want to compete with github on features as well as pricing for private repos, they really need to address these things.
I've increasingly found myself using both GitHub and Bitbucket. In this vein, I just pushed up some changes to my list of Git utilities (https://github.com/mhartl/git-utils) that includes full pull request support for both GitHub and Bitbucket on OS X. In particular, if you're on branch foobar and want to issue a pull request to merge with master, you just type
$ git pull-request
This pushes your local branch up to origin and opens the pull request page at GitHub or Bitbucket (depending on the relevant URL from .git/config).
The same Git utils repo includes git open, which opens the remote page for your project:
$ git open
As with git pull-request, it works with both GitHub and Bitbucket (OS X only).
Bitbucket is great. I use it for all my private projects since it offers a much more sensible price structure than github (for me at least — github's model is based on number of repositories while bitbucket's is based on number of users).
Mercurial is a better tool than Git in almost every aspect. It's easy to learn and gets out of your way. I chose it over git a few years ago and sticked with it ever since and used Bitbucket to host most of my stuff. You don't get the community that Github has, but the hosting is great.
I feel like I am taking crazy pills whenever somebody says that mercurial is simpler than git. Mercurial's per-file revlog and structured .hg/store/data is way weirder / more complex than git's SHA-addressed DAG with minimal/orthogonal object types. The only real blemish on git is that lightweight tags should not exist.
I totally agree. Its one of those tools that stays out of your way unless you `need` to do something weird (unfortunately when you need to do that some times it can get really wierd). I feel like with git the base line is fairly complicated.
They had one I reported Oct 2010, took a while to convince was an issue and they finally fixed a few months after saying they would. The URLS for attachments to private issues in private repos were guessable and publicly accessible if you guessed right (ie no authentication for them).
An interesting difference I've noticed about Bitbucket vs Github: While Github has had a "deploy key" feature for quite a while, and Bitbucket only added such a feature just under a year ago, I think Bitbucket's version is a much better fit for what deploy keys are usually used for.
With Github, a deploy key has read-write access to repos, and each key can only be attached to a single repo.
However, with Bitbucket, a deploy key has read-only access to repos, and each key can be attached to more than one repo.
Tool usage patterns often exhibit social clustering. I.e., friends and colleagues tend to use similar tools, through a mixture of exposure, recommendation, similar work habits, shared constraints, etc. When the tool in question is about interacting with others (whether socially or professionally), it's naturally even more pronounced.
[+] [-] imperialWicket|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] outworlder|12 years ago|reply
Also, with the startup edition you get Fogbugz, which is pretty decent - and certainly lightyears ahead of github issues.
Note: I have no relationship with FogCreek, but I've added a few personal projects there and so far I have no complaints.
[+] [-] namdnay|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tshepang|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RexM|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] latj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RivieraKid|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbarham|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergiotapia|12 years ago|reply
JIRA is pretty sweet to keep things in order.
[+] [-] vyrotek|12 years ago|reply
Really? I use and love BitBucket, but the last 2 places I worked at used JIRA and it was the worst project management tool I've ever used. I'm sure someone will say they didn't configure it right or educate the devs or something. Seriously though, it was pushed down from upper management in both cases and it was a terrible experience. Then they thought Greenhopper would fix it, ha. (This was about 4+ years ago)
Edit - According to the comments below it sounds like my experience was a result of trying to do too much with it. I just might play around with a bit just for some bug tracking with some of my BitBucket projects.
[+] [-] joeblau|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackula1|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riddim|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rz2k|12 years ago|reply
It would be a hassle to get counted as a student by Github without an edu email, and it would be too much for them to individually approve tens of thousands of people.
[1] http://www.coursera.org/course/scicomp
[+] [-] aragot|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drawkbox|12 years ago|reply
For company/private repos I always use bitbucket, for OSS I use github. The prices are right, it's flexible and you can have the comfort of serviced repos off your local. It is great for remote teams or getting companies to open up to remote access to repos.
I started using bitbucket when it was primarily python focused (github started ruby focused) and liked Mercurial since it was Python based and better supported on Windows back in the day for many windows clients. But they have definitely kept up and after Atlassian bought it they haven't dropped the ball. I also use SourceTree before they bought it and Atlassian knows good tools when they see them, bought that and opened it up (with a windows client in beta).
Congrats to bitbucket from a happy customer for a long time.
[+] [-] hhandoko|12 years ago|reply
I was even happier when they ported SourceTree to Windows. All I need now is the Mercurial support for it, so I can finally use a single client for both Git + Hg in Windows.
[+] [-] reidrac|12 years ago|reply
One thing I miss in Bitbucket is repo discovery. There's no way, or at least I can't find it, to browse the repositories filtering by language, popularity, etc.
1 million users, I don't know how many repos, but I can tell you I've found lots of cool projects in GitHub thanks to to their search/browsing features. I may be wrong but I think Bitbucket needs that.
(there's a bug report: https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issue/2934/browse-reposito...)
[+] [-] ngoldbaum|12 years ago|reply
[1] https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issue/2184/support-cnames-...
[2] https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issue/6024/ability-to-igno...
[3] https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issue/2874/ability-to-sear...
[4] https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issue/4307/feature-request...
[+] [-] mhartl|12 years ago|reply
The same Git utils repo includes git open, which opens the remote page for your project:
As with git pull-request, it works with both GitHub and Bitbucket (OS X only).[+] [-] n9com|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] speeder|12 years ago|reply
Also I use their SourceTree GUI GIT tool, it is really nice too.
Now this is looking like a ad for Atlassian, I should charge them :P
[+] [-] Osiris|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sshconnection|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tn13|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsync|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wooptoo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlgreco|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VMG|12 years ago|reply
No need to proclaim personal tastes as absolute truths around here.
In any case, Bitbucket has complete git support.
[+] [-] kibibu|12 years ago|reply
But it has nothing, NOTHING as good as git rebase -i
[+] [-] seany|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joeblau|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orangethirty|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rogerbinns|12 years ago|reply
The URLs were like this https://bitbucket-assetroot.s3.amazonaws.com/<username&#...
Obviously a bit tedious to guess for humans, but no big deal for computers.
[+] [-] jespern|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yawaramin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gldnspud|12 years ago|reply
With Github, a deploy key has read-write access to repos, and each key can only be attached to a single repo.
However, with Bitbucket, a deploy key has read-only access to repos, and each key can be attached to more than one repo.
[+] [-] akurilin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joeld42|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ckdarby|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbehrends|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phaer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fareesh|12 years ago|reply