Are there that many non-enterprise companies using Bitbucket over Github? Most startups and mid-sized companies I know use Github for private repo hosting.
I think the integration with JIRA (which is arguably best-in-breed for moderately heavy-duty issue tracking) is quite a compelling argument for going with an all-Atlassian setup; you can even use their SourceTree product as a git GUI.
On the other hand, GitHub's stuff generally does feel nicer to use and better and more thoughtfully UX'd.
Side note, but you can use SourceTree regardless, right?
I assume it has some features that are paid (or only work with Bitbucket?), but I've found it brilliant for managing GH repos - one of the nicest free tools I use.
Bitbucket provides free private repos, and for smaller development teams and/or companies not wanting to deal with the cost of Github (which does admittedly grow exponentially the more repos you require), Bitbucket is a fine choice.
When we were making the decision at my company, we went with Github because the dev team cared about having the little green squares show up on the "activity" chart for their account's... I know, petty, but it's something, and since most of us do FOSS projects, it's a status thing.
It used to be any commit that made it into a repo's master branch, the green squares showed up, even if it was a private repo (it just didn't show details of the repo to public users). But now, those don't show up to the public, only the user themselves sees them while logged in... so if we were making the decision today, I'd probably lean towards Bitbucket.
It can depend highly on your needs. We have a small team but a large number of private repositories. Github basis prices on number of repositories, which makes them incredibly expensive for us. Bitbucket basis prices on team size, which made them cheap for us.
We use BitBucket since we're a small shop from a developer count standpoint but we have a ton of small repos plus we migrated over a ton of legacy svn repos. GitHub gets expensive real quick when you are in that situation.
For anyone doing 'client work' rather than developing a single/few products, GitHub's pricing is almost prohibitively expensive.
We have a little over a hundred repositories. This puts is in the $200/mo plan for GitHub (125 repository limit).
Atlassian prices per-user. Our small three person dev team costs us nothing. We'll reach the next pricing tier when we hit our 6th developer, at which point it will cost us $10/mo and will remain that cost up to 10 developers.
BitBucket's top plan is $200/mo. That gets you unlimited repositories and users compared to GitHub's 125 repositories.
In the middle tier, GitHub charges $50/mo for 20 repositories whereas BitBucket charges $50/mo for 50 users.
If you have few repositories but many users, GitHub's pricing is advantageous. If you have many repositories but few users, BitBucket makes way more sense.
Tons of startups that you don't even know about use Bitbucket for their free private repos. When you have a team of 1-5 people there is no reason to pay for Github.
You'd think more start-ups/mid-size ones would use Bitbucket since they have free private repos. I'm guessing the social allure of Github and its superior repo/pull request UI is what trumps Bitbucket to that end.
I'm pretty sure it's wanting to be one of the 'cool kids' that pulls people to GitHub.
If your decision about where to host your code repos is decided by how pretty the webpage to create pull-requests is, the wrong people are making decisions such in your business.
bshimmin|11 years ago
On the other hand, GitHub's stuff generally does feel nicer to use and better and more thoughtfully UX'd.
fenomas|11 years ago
I assume it has some features that are paid (or only work with Bitbucket?), but I've found it brilliant for managing GH repos - one of the nicest free tools I use.
Alupis|11 years ago
When we were making the decision at my company, we went with Github because the dev team cared about having the little green squares show up on the "activity" chart for their account's... I know, petty, but it's something, and since most of us do FOSS projects, it's a status thing.
It used to be any commit that made it into a repo's master branch, the green squares showed up, even if it was a private repo (it just didn't show details of the repo to public users). But now, those don't show up to the public, only the user themselves sees them while logged in... so if we were making the decision today, I'd probably lean towards Bitbucket.
tnorthcutt|11 years ago
Just to clarify, GH's pricing doesn't actually grow exponentially. The per repo price gets lower the more you pay for:
5 private repos: $7
10 private repos: $12
20 private repos: $22
50 private repos: $50
wichert|11 years ago
SystemOut|11 years ago
nucleardog|11 years ago
We have a little over a hundred repositories. This puts is in the $200/mo plan for GitHub (125 repository limit).
Atlassian prices per-user. Our small three person dev team costs us nothing. We'll reach the next pricing tier when we hit our 6th developer, at which point it will cost us $10/mo and will remain that cost up to 10 developers.
BitBucket's top plan is $200/mo. That gets you unlimited repositories and users compared to GitHub's 125 repositories.
In the middle tier, GitHub charges $50/mo for 20 repositories whereas BitBucket charges $50/mo for 50 users.
If you have few repositories but many users, GitHub's pricing is advantageous. If you have many repositories but few users, BitBucket makes way more sense.
iopq|11 years ago
jschwartzi|11 years ago
Dirlewanger|11 years ago
stephenr|11 years ago
If your decision about where to host your code repos is decided by how pretty the webpage to create pull-requests is, the wrong people are making decisions such in your business.